Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs DeepSeek-V3

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 39.5 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-V3 costs 25× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 30 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic

58.2

Rank #20 Confirmed

DeepSeek-V3 DeepSeek

39.5

Rank #166 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 30 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 8 categories and DeepSeek-V3 in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 57.8 to 20.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 94.4% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 37.8% for DeepSeek-V3.
  • DeepSeek-V3 is cheaper at $0.24 / $0.90 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.6.
  • Claude Opus 4.6 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 164K.
  • DeepSeek-V3 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3
ProviderAnthropicDeepSeek
Noometry Index58.239.5
Released2026-02-042024-12-26
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M164K
Max output128K164K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.24
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.90
Results tracked6860

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-V3: 42.3 (#106)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3
WeirdML78%36.1%
LMArena Coding15361368
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
FrontierCode26.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)75.6%—
Aider Polyglot—55.1%
LMArena WebDev1547—
SWE-bench Multilingual72%—
SciCode—35.8%
GSO41.2%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—50%
LiveBench Coding—70.9%
BigCodeBench Complete—62.2%
ALE-Bench996.5—
AlgoTune1.47—
HumanEval+—86.6%
MBPP+—73%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4), DeepSeek-V3: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3
METR Time Horizons78.9%49.6%
Terminal-Bench79.8%—
APEX-Agents46.3%—
Remote Labor Index4.2%—
τ²-bench Banking27.3%—
Cybench93%—
DeepResearch Bench55.3%—
GBAEval44.1%—
LMArena Search1253—
Vending-Bench 28,018—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.8 (#23), DeepSeek-V3: 20.5 (#236)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3
SimpleBench67.6%27.2%
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.6%52.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts15271365
DTBench91.2%64.8%
LMCA55.8%15.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index155.24135.94
ForecastBench6059.1
ARC-AGI-269.2%—
NYT Connections (extended)92.1%—
ARC-AGI-194%—
CritPt—0%
Chess Puzzles17%—
EnigmaEval7.6%—
Thematic Generalization80.6%—
EBR-Bench12.7%—
LiveBench Reasoning—65.8%
Mystery Game Puzzles25%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—60.9%
BIG-Bench Hard—87.5%
HellaSwag—88.9%
LiveBench—66.9%
PIQA—84.7%
WinoGrande—85.2%

Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31), DeepSeek-V3: 32.1 (#219)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.4%37.8%
LMArena Math15191373
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)40.7%1.7%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%—
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions78.5%—
ProofBench50%—
Omni-MATH—40.3%
LiveBench Math—73.5%
MATH Level 5—75.5%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26), DeepSeek-V3: 37.5 (#155)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3
GPQA Diamond90.5%67.6%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.2%6.1%
LMArena Expert15461351
Humanity's Last Exam34.4%—
SimpleQA Verified47%—
MMLU-Pro—72.3%
Confabulations—26.1%
GPQA (HELM)—53.8%
ARC (AI2) Challenge—95.3%
MMLU—87.2%
TriviaQA—82.9%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74), DeepSeek-V3: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3
LMArena Vision1316—
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1507—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), DeepSeek-V3: 48.5 (#143)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3
LMArena Non-English14891358
LMArena Chinese15511391
LMArena French15131385
LMArena German15021374
LMArena Japanese14841333
LMArena Korean14641319
LMArena Russian14971373
LMArena Spanish15101358

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), DeepSeek-V3: 72.8 (#130)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3
LMArena Instruction Following15231345
LiveBench Instruction Following—81.5%
IFEval—83.2%

Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), DeepSeek-V3: 34.0 (#253)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3
LMArena Longer Query15201352
Fiction.LiveBench—50%
CL-bench20.7%—
CL-bench Life17%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), DeepSeek-V3: 57.4 (#130)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3
LMArena Text15031375
LMArena Creative Writing15051364
EQ-Bench Creative Writing18091472
LMArena Multi-Turn15131389
Short-Story Creative Writing—77%
WildBench—83%
EQ-Bench 41223—
LiveBench Language—49.1%

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than DeepSeek-V3?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 39.5 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-V3 costs 25× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or DeepSeek-V3?

DeepSeek-V3 is cheaper. It lists at $0.24 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 or DeepSeek-V3 better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 42.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.6 does, with 1M tokens against 164K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and DeepSeek-V3 share?

30 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and DeepSeek-V3 has 60.

Related comparisons

Go deeper