Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 vs DeepSeek Coder 1.3B
Claude Opus 4.6 has enough public results to be ranked (#20); DeepSeek Coder 1.3B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeekSummary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 1 category and DeepSeek Coder 1.3B in 0 categories; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 57.2 to 31.2.
- DeepSeek Coder 1.3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.6 | DeepSeek Coder 1.3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | DeepSeek |
| Noometry Index | 58.2 | 35.0 |
| Released | 2026-02-04 | 2023-11-02 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | — |
| Results tracked | 68 | 9 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Claude Opus 4.6: 57.2 (#20), DeepSeek Coder 1.3B: 31.2 (#287)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | DeepSeek Coder 1.3B |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 78.7% | — |
| FrontierCode | 26.6% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 75.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1547 | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 72% | — |
| GSO | 41.2% | — |
| WeirdML | 78% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 22.8% |
| LMArena Coding | 1536 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 29.6% |
| ALE-Bench | 996.5 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.47 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 60.4% |
| MBPP+ | — | 54.8% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4), DeepSeek Coder 1.3B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | DeepSeek Coder 1.3B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 79.8% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 46.3% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 4.2% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 27.3% | — |
| Cybench | 93% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 55.3% | — |
| GBAEval | 44.1% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1253 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 78.9% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 8,018 | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 57.8 (#23), DeepSeek Coder 1.3B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | DeepSeek Coder 1.3B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 155.24 | 63.6 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 69.2% | — |
| SimpleBench | 67.6% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 83.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 92.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 94% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 17% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 7.6% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 80.6% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 12.7% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1527 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 25% | — |
| DTBench | 91.2% | — |
| LMCA | 55.8% | — |
| ForecastBench | 60 | — |
| WinoGrande | — | 53.3% |
Math Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31), DeepSeek Coder 1.3B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | DeepSeek Coder 1.3B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 66% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 78.5% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 94.4% | — |
| ProofBench | 50% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1519 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 40.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 22.9% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 4.4% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26), DeepSeek Coder 1.3B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | DeepSeek Coder 1.3B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.5% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 34.4% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 47% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.2% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1546 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 25.4% |
| MMLU | — | 25.8% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74), DeepSeek Coder 1.3B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | DeepSeek Coder 1.3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1316 | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 28.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1507 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), DeepSeek Coder 1.3B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | DeepSeek Coder 1.3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1489 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1551 | — |
| LMArena French | 1513 | — |
| LMArena German | 1502 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1484 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1464 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1497 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1510 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), DeepSeek Coder 1.3B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | DeepSeek Coder 1.3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1523 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), DeepSeek Coder 1.3B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | DeepSeek Coder 1.3B |
|---|---|---|
| CL-bench | 20.7% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 17% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1520 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), DeepSeek Coder 1.3B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.6 | DeepSeek Coder 1.3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1503 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1505 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1809 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1223 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1513 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than DeepSeek Coder 1.3B?
Claude Opus 4.6 has enough public results to be ranked (#20); DeepSeek Coder 1.3B does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is Claude Opus 4.6 or DeepSeek Coder 1.3B better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 31.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and DeepSeek Coder 1.3B share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and DeepSeek Coder 1.3B has 9.