Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 52.8 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash costs 38× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 36 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.3

Rank #19 Confirmed

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash DeepSeek

52.8

Rank #38 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 36 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 9 categories and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash in 1 category; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 47.9 to 31.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 39% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 89.6% for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash.
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.7.
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.7DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
ProviderAnthropicDeepSeek
Noometry Index58.352.8
Released2026-04-142026-09-09
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M1M
Max output128K393K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.15
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.60
Results tracked6637

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 59.6 (#13), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 52.9 (#32)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
LMArena WebDev15581619
SciCode54.5%51.9%
LMArena Coding15181506
ALE-Bench1,3231,092
SWE-bench Verified83.5%—
FrontierCode38.5%—
GSO44.1%—
WeirdML76.4%—
MirrorCode31.1%—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 31.2 (#69)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
APEX-Agents49.2%39.5%
GDP.pdf21%19.8%
Terminal-Bench80.2%—
OSWorld 2.018.2%—
τ²-bench Banking40.2%—
PostTrainBench28.6%—
ExploitBench26.5%—
GBAEval43.8%—
LMArena Search1233—
Vending-Bench 210,937—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 50.2 (#36)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
NYT Connections (extended)39%89.6%
CritPt12%14.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts15061483
Mystery Game Puzzles28%43%
DTBench94.7%89.9%
LMCA52.2%47%
Epoch Capabilities Index156.25154.9
ARC-AGI-275.8%—
SimpleBench61.7%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.7%—
ARC-AGI-193.5%—
Chess Puzzles30%—
Thematic Generalization72.8%—
EBR-Bench19%—
Surface Evolver Bench—46.3%
ForecastBench60.3—

Math Too close to call

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 66.7 (#25)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)70.2%67.4%
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%26.8%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%98.3%
ProofBench54%54%
LMArena Math14991477
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions73.6%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)43.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 57.9 (#38)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
GPQA Diamond90.2%89.8%
LMArena Expert15211506
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%—
SimpleQA Verified51.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%—

Multimodal Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 39.1 (#61)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
LMArena Vision13161277
Furniture Assembly33.3%34.2%
Blueprint-Bench 224.5%—
LMArena Document1495—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 55.0 (#35)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
LMArena Non-English14801448
LMArena Chinese15311497
LMArena French15031452
LMArena German14951484
LMArena Japanese14721412
LMArena Korean14641452
LMArena Russian14941471
LMArena Spanish14951459

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 77.3 (#26)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following14981474

Long Context Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 45.2 (#47)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
LMArena Longer Query15051475

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 65.4 (#48)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
LMArena Text14901462
LMArena Creative Writing14861435
EQ-Bench Creative Writing19141540
LMArena Multi-Turn15051457
EQ-Bench 41311—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than DeepSeek V4.1 Flash?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 52.8 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash costs 38× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 52.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 1M tokens.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash share?

36 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has 37.

Related comparisons

Go deeper