Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro Base
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 5 #1 (Estimated); DeepSeek V4 Pro Base unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 5 and DeepSeek V4 Pro Base share 0 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 79 results are unique to Claude Opus 5; 24 to DeepSeek V4 Pro Base.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 79
- DeepSeek V4 Pro Base only
- 24
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Claude Opus 5 makes more sense if reasoning is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile; DeepSeek V4 Pro Base is the better fit if knowledge is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Opus 5 and DeepSeek V4 Pro Base finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Claude Opus 5 is the reasoning model in the pair, while DeepSeek V4 Pro Base is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 5$5 input / $25 output | DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 5Not available | DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 5Not available | DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 5Not available | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base1M | A complete context comparison is not available. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic24 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierBench v0.1Source | 43.3% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 90.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 64.7% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 95.0% | — | Not comparable |
| DRACOSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)Source | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 85.8% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP-Atlas claim coverageSource | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | 23.58% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | 93.74% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | 11.7% | — | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | 94.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1861 | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon-VerifiedSource | 80.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass@3Source | 87.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass³Source | 73.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified avg. turnsSource | 23.5 turns | — | Not comparable |
| AutomationBenchSource | 26.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 55.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 68.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 30.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1720 | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
Coding14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 96% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 79.2% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 89.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultimodalSource | 59.4% | — | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | 68.8% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 53.4% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource | 63.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBench (episode 1)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ProgramBenchSource | 93.0% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 70.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 78.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 55.7% | — | Not comparable |
| BigCodeBenchSource | — | 59.2% | Not comparable |
| HumanEvalSource | — | 76.8% | Not comparable |
ReasoningClaude Opus 5 wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-1Source | 97.50% | — | Not comparable |
| ARC-AGI-2Source | 90.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ARC-AGI-3Source | 30.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-LCRSource | 70.0% | — | Not comparable |
| CritPtSource | 29.1% | — | Not comparable |
| BBHSource | — | 87.5% | Not comparable |
| DROPSource | — | 88.7% | Not comparable |
| HellaSwagSource | — | 88.0% | Not comparable |
| WinoGrandeSource | — | 81.5% | Not comparable |
| CLUEWSCSource | — | 85.2% | Not comparable |
| LongBench v2Source | — | 51.5% | Not comparable |
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Pro Base wins33 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 64.7% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 56.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (raw)Source | 67.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (length-adjusted)Source | 57.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | 59.8% | — | Not comparable |
| HealthBench Professional (raw)Source | 73.4% | — | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)Source | 90.1% | — | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)Source | 49.4% | — | Not comparable |
| SpatialBench VerifiedSource | 72.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SingleCellBenchSource | 60.6% | — | Not comparable |
| ProteinGym HardSource | 47.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Protein DesignSource | 42.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Organic chemistry V2Source | 61.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Protocols (troubleshooting)Source | 61.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Protocols (understanding)Source | 78.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 60.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 93.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 52.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 31.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 54.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 50.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AGIEvalSource | — | 83.1% | Not comparable |
| MMLUSource | — | 90.1% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 90.8% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 73.5% | Not comparable |
| MMMLUSource | — | 90.3% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 93.1% | Not comparable |
| CMMLUSource | — | 90.8% | Not comparable |
| MultiLoKoSource | — | 51.1% | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | — | 55.2% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 53.9% | Not comparable |
| FACTS ParametricSource | — | 62.6% | Not comparable |
| TriviaQASource | — | 85.6% | Not comparable |
Math8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| IMO 2026Source | 42/42 | — | Not comparable |
| RiemannBench (no tools)Source | 60.0% | — | Not comparable |
| RiemannBench (tools)Source | 79.0% | — | Not comparable |
| ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (no tools)Source | 90.8% | — | Not comparable |
| ArXivMath Jun. 2026 (tools)Source | 91.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GSM8KSource | — | 92.6% | Not comparable |
| MATHSource | — | 64.5% | Not comparable |
| CMathSource | — | 90.9% | Not comparable |
Multilingual4 benchmarks
Multimodal9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro Base | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chartography (no tools)Source | 29.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Chartography (tools)Source | 83.0% | — | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)Source | 0.366 | — | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)Source | 0.821 | — | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (no tools)Source | 83.4% | — | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (tools)Source | 85.5% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQASource | 78.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OfficeQA ProSource | 66.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 84.7% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro Base?
Claude Opus 5 and DeepSeek V4 Pro Base are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro Base?
DeepSeek V4 Pro Base has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 66.4 versus 64.7. Claude Opus 5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for reasoning, Claude Opus 5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro Base?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 90.4 versus 51.5. DeepSeek V4 Pro Base stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.