Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 54.3 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek V4 Pro costs 10× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 45 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic

58.2

Rank #20 Confirmed

DeepSeek V4 Pro DeepSeek

54.3

Rank #31 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 45 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 8 categories and DeepSeek V4 Pro in 1 category; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 51.1 to 32.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Kagi LLM Benchmark: 83.6% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 53.5% for DeepSeek V4 Pro.
  • DeepSeek V4 Pro is cheaper at $0.66 / $1.98 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.6.
  • DeepSeek V4 Pro has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro
ProviderAnthropicDeepSeek
Noometry Index58.254.3
Released2026-02-042026-04-24
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M1M
Max output128K393K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.66
Output $ / M tokens$25$1.98
Results tracked6848

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 V4 Pro: 52.4 (#34)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro
SWE-bench Verified78.7%77.6%
FrontierCode26.6%28.6%
LMArena WebDev15471582
WeirdML78%66.2%
LMArena Coding15361470
ALE-Bench996.51,403
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)75.6%—
SWE-bench Multilingual72%—
SciCode—51%
GSO41.2%—
AlgoTune1.47—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4), DeepSeek V4 Pro: 32.8 (#58)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro
APEX-Agents46.3%47.3%
Vending-Bench 28,0183,285
Terminal-Bench79.8%—
Remote Labor Index4.2%—
τ²-bench Banking27.3%—
Cybench93%—
DeepResearch Bench55.3%—
GBAEval44.1%—
LMArena Search1253—
METR Time Horizons78.9%—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.8 (#23), DeepSeek V4 Pro: 56.5 (#24)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro
ARC-AGI-269.2%61.3%
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.6%53.5%
NYT Connections (extended)92.1%91.3%
ARC-AGI-194%90.5%
Chess Puzzles17%47%
LMArena Hard Prompts15271461
Mystery Game Puzzles25%43%
DTBench91.2%93.9%
LMCA55.8%45.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index155.24155.31
ForecastBench6056.1
SimpleBench67.6%—
CritPt—18%
EnigmaEval7.6%—
Thematic Generalization80.6%—
EBR-Bench12.7%—
Surface Evolver Bench—40%

Math DeepSeek V4 Pro leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31), DeepSeek V4 Pro: 64.8 (#30)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%64.6%
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%26.8%
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions78.5%76.6%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.4%98.6%
ProofBench50%50%
LMArena Math15191455
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)40.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26), DeepSeek V4 Pro: 59.5 (#31)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro
GPQA Diamond90.5%91.7%
SimpleQA Verified47%52.9%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.2%8.6%
LMArena Expert15461464
Humanity's Last Exam34.4%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74), DeepSeek V4 Pro: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro
LMArena Vision1316—
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1507—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), DeepSeek V4 Pro: 54.4 (#45)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro
LMArena Non-English14891439
LMArena Chinese15511486
LMArena French15131472
LMArena German15021458
LMArena Japanese14841445
LMArena Korean14641447
LMArena Russian14971453
LMArena Spanish15101458

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), DeepSeek V4 Pro: 76.1 (#47)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro
LMArena Instruction Following15231448

Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), DeepSeek V4 Pro: 45.0 (#51)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro
CL-bench Life17%13.5%
LMArena Longer Query15201458
CL-bench20.7%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), DeepSeek V4 Pro: 65.5 (#46)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4 Pro
LMArena Text15031451
LMArena Creative Writing15051446
EQ-Bench Creative Writing18091553
EQ-Bench 412231166
LMArena Multi-Turn15131467

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than DeepSeek V4 Pro?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 54.3 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek V4 Pro costs 10× 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 V4 Pro?

DeepSeek V4 Pro is cheaper. It lists at $0.66 per million input tokens and $1.98 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 or DeepSeek V4 Pro better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 52.4 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 1M tokens.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and DeepSeek V4 Pro share?

45 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and DeepSeek V4 Pro has 48.

Related comparisons

Go deeper