DeepSeek vs Claude
Claude is the stronger measured quality pick; DeepSeek is the cost and deployment pick. Claude Opus 5.5 scores 86.62 at #1. The current DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 checkpoint is 63.23 at #44.DeepSeek charges $1.32/$3.96 per million input/output tokens at peak and half that off-peak; Claude Opus 5.5 charges $4/$20.
The price leader does not lead the retained shared benchmark rows, and the measured quality leader does not come close on price. We checked the public-score status, the 8 benchmark keys shared by the two model records, and both official rate cards. Claude leads 8 of those rows. DeepSeek's combined listed input-plus-output rate is about 5 times lower.
This is a model and API comparison. Claude Code and third-party DeepSeek coding harnesses add tools, prompts, and execution loops that can change the result, so their product claims do not substitute for the model rows below.
DeepSeek or Claude: the decision in one table
Claude Opus 5.5 and DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 are the flagship anchors. The lower-cost tiers matter too, especially when a production router can reserve the expensive model for failed or high-stakes requests.
| Model | Public score | Evidence | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 5.5Anthropic | 86.62 | supported | 1M |
| Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | 83.06 | supported | 1M |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5Anthropic | 82.21 | supported | 1M |
| Claude Haiku 5.5Anthropic | 67.17 | estimated | 1M |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813DeepSeek | 63.23 | estimated | 1M |
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017DeepSeek | 65.86 | supported | 1M |
What the shared benchmarks actually show
Claude Opus 5.5 leads 8 of the 8 retained benchmarks shared with DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813. The largest practical coding gaps are SWE-bench Pro at 89.9% versus 55.4% and SWE Multilingual at 93.9% versus 76.2%. AutomationBench reads the same way for tool use: 40.0% versus 31.8%.
These DeepSeek values belong to the current hosted 0813 checkpoint, which is 63.23 at #44. The 8 shared results show how the recorded checkpoints compare, not how the APIs will perform on every task.
| Shared benchmark | Claude Opus 5.5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AutomationBenchAgentic | 40.0% | 31.8% | Claude Opus 5.5 |
| HLE w/ toolsAgentic | 67.7% | 60.0% | Claude Opus 5.5 |
| Toolathlon-VerifiedAgentic | 77.8% | 74.1% | Claude Opus 5.5 |
| SWE-bench ProCoding | 89.9% | 55.4% | Claude Opus 5.5 |
| SWE MultilingualCoding | 93.9% | 76.2% | Claude Opus 5.5 |
| DeepSWECoding | 74.2% | 62.7% | Claude Opus 5.5 |
| ARC-AGI-1Reasoning | 97.50% | 90.00% | Claude Opus 5.5 |
| ARC-AGI-2Reasoning | 91.7% | 61.3% | Claude Opus 5.5 |
Open the Claude Opus 5.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 model comparison for category detail, evidence status, and the remaining one-sided rows.
The price gap is the DeepSeek argument
At DeepSeek's peak rates, DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 costs about 3x less than Claude Opus 5.5 on input and about 5x less than it on output. Off-peak hours halve the DeepSeek side. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 widens the gap at $0.30/$1.20 at peak. For a workload using 10 million input and 2 million output tokens, the listed rates produce $21.12 on DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 at peak ($10.56 off-peak) and $80 on Claude Opus 5.5 before cache discounts, taxes, retries, or tool fees.
That $58.88 peak-hour difference buys room for retries, routing, and larger evaluation cohorts. But a lower token bill can disappear if a weaker model needs repeated repair passes. The useful unit is accepted tasks per dollar, not tokens per dollar.
| Model | Input / 1M | Output / 1M | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 5.5 | $4.00 | $20.00 | — |
| Claude Fable 5.1 | $10.00 | $50.00 | Highest-priced current Claude API model |
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 | $2.00 | $10.00 | — |
| Claude Haiku 5.5 | $0.10 | $0.50 | Lowest-priced current Claude API model |
| DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 | $1.32 | $3.96 | Peak rate; off-peak is half. Cache-hit input: $0.044 / 1M tokens at peak |
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 | $0.30 | $1.20 | Peak rate; off-peak is half. Cache-hit input: $0.006 / 1M tokens at peak |
Verify current rates on the DeepSeek API pricing and Claude API pricing hubs.
Open weights change the deployment choice
DeepSeek publishes downloadable V4 Base weights. That creates a self-hosting path for teams that can run the model, inspect the artifact, and accept the operational burden. The hosted V4 Pro and Flash endpoints remain paid services with their own model IDs and token rates. Open weight is not the same promise as an entirely open training stack.
Claude stays behind Anthropic's API and product surfaces. That removes self-hosting from the decision, but it also removes the infrastructure job. If data location, weight access, or provider independence is mandatory, DeepSeek is the only candidate here. If the highest shared coding and agentic results matter more, Claude keeps the advantage.
Which should you pick?
Pick DeepSeek if…
- API cost is the main constraint and you can measure task acceptance before routing production traffic.
- You need downloadable weights or a self-hosting option instead of an API-only model.
- High-volume extraction, classification, or code generation can tolerate repair passes.
- You want a cheap first-pass model with Claude reserved as an escalation lane.
Pick Claude if…
- Coding reliability matters more than the lowest possible token bill.
- Your workload resembles the shared SWE-bench, MCP Atlas, or knowledge rows Claude leads.
- You want a current public score and can afford the premium.
- You prefer a managed product and API over operating open-weight infrastructure.
How this comparison works
The comparison uses public-score status, exact shared benchmark keys, first-party pricing pages, and model-release artifacts. Scores remain separate from raw benchmarks; the current hosted DeepSeek checkpoint is 63.23 at #44. Price math uses standard input and output rates, DeepSeek's at peak, without assuming a cache-hit share.
Honest limit. The comparison does not run Claude Code against a DeepSeek coding harness, and it does not measure either model on your repository. Re-run representative tasks before replacing one provider with the other.
Reviewed by Glevd on August 13, 2026.
Questions
Is DeepSeek better than Claude?
Not on most of the evidence available for a direct comparison. Claude Opus 5.5 scores 86.62 at #1, while the current DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 checkpoint is 63.23 at #44. Claude leads 8 of the 8 retained benchmark rows shared by the two model records. DeepSeek wins when token cost or open-weight deployment matters more than the highest measured ceiling.
Is DeepSeek cheaper than Claude?
Yes. DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 costs $1.32 input and $3.96 output per million tokens at peak, compared with $4 and $20 for Claude Opus 5.5. That means DeepSeek's input costs about 3x less than Claude's and its output costs about 5x less than Claude's. Off-peak hours halve its rates. Cache-hit input can lower DeepSeek's bill further when a workload repeats the same prompt prefix.
Which is better for coding, DeepSeek or Claude?
Claude leads the retained shared coding rows. Claude Opus 5.5 records 89.9% on SWE-bench Pro, 93.9% on SWE Multilingual, and 74.2% on DeepSWE; DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813 records 55.4%, 76.2%, and 62.7%. The current DeepSeek checkpoint is 63.23 at #44; test both models on representative work before choosing.
Is DeepSeek open source?
DeepSeek V4 has downloadable open weights, which is narrower than calling the entire system open source. The V4 Base weights can be inspected and self-hosted under DeepSeek's published terms, while the hosted V4 Pro and Flash APIs have separate token prices. Claude is proprietary and does not provide downloadable model weights for self-hosting.