Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)
Head-to-head evidence from 20 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 5 #1 (Estimated); DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) #83 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 5 and DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) share 20 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 59 results are unique to Claude Opus 5; 18 to DeepSeek V4 Pro (High).
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 20
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 59
- DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only
- 18
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 20 shared benchmark results across 4 evidence categories; 3 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 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 85.88 to 55.45. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 5's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 90.8 against 70.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 64.7% to 34.5%.
Claude Opus 5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.43 input / $0.87 output per 1M tokens for DeepSeek V4 Pro (High). That is roughly 28.7x on output cost alone.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Claude Opus 5 | Δ | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Opus 590.8 | Margin← 20.2 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)70.6 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 589.5 | Margin← 19.7 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)69.8 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 564.7 | Margin← 7.7 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)57.0 |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 590.4 | MarginNo overlap | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measured |
| Math | Claude Opus 5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)94.0 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 566.9 | MarginNo overlap | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 64.7%B 34.5%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 30.2HLE: Claude Opus 5 scored 64.7%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 34.5%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Pro
CodingA 79.2%B 54.4%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 24.8SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 5 scored 79.2%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 54.4%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 96%B 79.4%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 16.6SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 5 scored 96%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 79.4%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 90.8%B 80.4%Winner: Claude Opus 5Δ 10.4BrowseComp: Claude Opus 5 scored 90.8%; DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) scored 80.4%. Claude Opus 5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 5$5 input / $25 output | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)$0.435 input / $0.87 output | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 5Not available | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 5Not available | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 5Not available | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)1M | A complete context comparison is not available. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 5 wins27 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierBench v0.1Source | 43.3% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 90.8% | 80.4% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | 64.7% | 44.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| 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% | 74.2% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| 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 | 1299 | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| 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% | 34.4% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 68.0% | 40.0% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 30.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1720 | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 89.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 63.3% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 49% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 94.2% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 5 wins14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 96% | 79.4% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 79.2% | 54.4% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 89.5% | 74.1% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| 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% | 58.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 55.7% | 46.4% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| CodeforcesSource | — | 2919.0 | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 63.3% | Not comparable |
Reasoning7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | 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% | 65.0% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| CritPtSource | 29.1% | 10.0% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| MRCR 1MSource | — | 83.3% | Not comparable |
| CorpusQA 1MSource | — | 56.5% | Not comparable |
KnowledgeClaude Opus 5 wins26 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 64.7% | 34.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| 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% | 43.1% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 93.2% | 90.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 52.6% | 33.5% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 31.3% | -9.7% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 54.2% | 41.8% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 50.1% | 88.6% | Claude Opus 5 leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 87.1% | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | — | 46.2% | Not comparable |
| Chinese-SimpleQASource | — | 77.7% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
Math9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | 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 |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 94.0% | Not comparable |
| IMOAnswerBenchSource | — | 88.0% | Not comparable |
| ApexSource | — | 27.4% | Not comparable |
| Apex ShortlistSource | — | 85.5% | Not comparable |
Multilingual3 benchmarks
Multimodal10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | 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 |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1264 | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro (High) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 71.3% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Claude Opus 5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)?
Claude Opus 5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 85.88 to 55.45. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 64.7% and 34.5%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 64.7 versus 57. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 89.5 versus 69.8. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro (High)?
Claude Opus 5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 90.8 versus 70.6. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.