BenchLeader
Menu
Best LLMsChoose a modelCoding plansLeaderboardsModelsBenchmarksProvidersReleases12

Claude Opus 5.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro

Full profiles: Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic) and DeepSeek V4 Pro (DeepSeek): every benchmark, price and rank.

Updated · Data from 13 sources

As of 9 Nov 2026, Claude Opus 5.5 is ahead of DeepSeek V4 Pro on quality (68.9 vs 59.1 on the BenchLeader Index), but DeepSeek V4 Pro is 8.1× cheaper at $0.990 vs $8.00 per 1M tokens blended. Claude Opus 5.5 leads in every category we measure both in. Claude Opus 5.5 streams ~2× faster.

Key facts (as of 9 Nov 2026)

  • Claude Opus 5.5 scores 68.9 on the BenchLeader Index and DeepSeek V4 Pro scores 59.1 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
  • Claude Opus 5.5 costs $8.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 9 Nov 2026).
  • DeepSeek V4 Pro costs $0.990 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 9 Nov 2026).
  • Claude Opus 5.5 streams ~2× faster than DeepSeek V4 Pro (Artificial Analysis, 7-day median, 9 Nov 2026).
  • Of the 7 benchmarks both models have, Claude Opus 5.5 leads 6 (BenchLeader, 9 Nov 2026).
  • On Arena WebDev, Claude Opus 5.5 is rated 1818 and DeepSeek V4 Pro 1581 (LMArena, as published by 9 Nov 2026).
Claude Opus 5.5 benchmarks max Anthropic DeepSeek V4 Pro benchmarks high DeepSeekAdd a third model

Which to pick for…

The pick's numbers come first. Category scores on the BenchLeader scale (50 is the average model, 15 points one standard deviation). High confidence means a lead of half a standard deviation or more; under one point is called either.

Use casePickWhyConfidence
CodingClaude Opus 5.580 vs 54 category score; Arena WebDev 1818 vs 1581High
MathsClaude Opus 5.574 vs 65 category score; OTIS Mock AIME 100.0% vs 95.6%High
ReasoningClaude Opus 5.572 vs 62 category score; ARC-AGI-2 91.7% vs 59.7%High
Chat quality (human preference)–Only DeepSeek V4 Pro has an Arena rating (65 category score)Not comparable
Lowest costDeepSeek V4 Pro$0.990 vs $8.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.048 vs $0.320–
Fastest first answerDeepSeek V4 Pro1.5 s (DeepSeek V4 Pro (high)) vs 380.6 s (Claude Opus 5.5 (max)) to the first answer token–
High volume on a budgetNeither flagshipA smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs–

Key differences

  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max) leads on quality: 68.9 vs 59.1.
  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, knowledge, long context, maths, multimodal, reasoning.
  • DeepSeek V4 Pro (high) is stronger in human preference.
  • DeepSeek V4 Pro (high) is 8.1× cheaper ($0.990 vs $8.00 per 1M blended).
  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max) streams 2.6× faster (115 vs 44 tokens per second).

At a glance

SpecClaude Opus 5.5DeepSeek V4 Pro
DeveloperAnthropicDeepSeek
Released22 Sep 202613 Aug 2026
Context window (tokens)1,000,0001,048,576
Max output (tokens)128,000 (up to 300K on the Message Batches API (beta))–
Input typestext, image–
Reasoning effort settingslow, medium, high, xhigh, max–
Compared atClaude Opus 5.5 (max)DeepSeek V4 Pro (high)
Open weightsNoYes
Price in / out / cached input per 1M$4.00 / $20.00 / $0.200$0.660 / $1.98 / $0.022
API model IDclaude-opus-5-5–
Where to use itClaude API, Amazon Bedrock, Google Cloud, Microsoft Foundry–

Limits, availability and announced prices from the vendors' own pages: platform.claude.com (checked 20 Oct 2026). Everything else is from the day's data.

Category by category

Category scores on the BenchLeader scale: 50 is the average evaluated model, 15 points is one standard deviation. A gap under one point is called level.

CategoryClaude Opus 5.5 (max)DeepSeek V4 Pro (high)Leader
Reasoning72.362.2Claude Opus 5.5
Coding80.453.8Claude Opus 5.5
Agents & tools62.7–not comparable
Maths74.064.6Claude Opus 5.5
Knowledge73.7–not comparable
Human preference–65.1not comparable
Multimodal70.3–not comparable
Long context67.1–not comparable

On one chart

Each domain on the index's own scale, where 50 is an average model. Click a domain to see the benchmarks behind it. Pick up to 5 models from the list.

2550 avg75ReasoningCodingMathsClaude Opus 5.5, Reasoning: 72.3Claude Opus 5.5, Coding: 80.4Claude Opus 5.5, Maths: 74.0DeepSeek V4 Pro, Reasoning: 62.2DeepSeek V4 Pro, Coding: 53.8DeepSeek V4 Pro, Maths: 64.6

Not drawn, measured for fewer than two of these models: Agents & tools, Knowledge, Instruction following, Long context, Multimodal, Human preference.

ModelIndex

Where sources disagree

Across the 7 benchmarks both have, Claude Opus 5.5 leads 6, DeepSeek V4 Pro leads 1. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Opus 5.5 ahead.

Overall indexClaude Opus 5.5 (max)DeepSeek V4 Pro (high)Leader
BenchLeader Index68.959.1Claude Opus 5.5
AA Intelligence Index v5.059.112.6†Claude Opus 5.5
Vals Index70.1†53.0Claude Opus 5.5
Arena Text1506†1464Claude Opus 5.5

Each publisher runs its own tasks, harnesses and effort settings, so their overall verdicts can differ; BenchLeader reconciles them on one scale. † measured at another effort setting of the same model (the publisher did not test the one compared here).

Price, speed and latency

List prices blended at three input tokens per output token. Per-task prices use the token counts on the methodology page. Cost, tokens and time per benchmark task are measured: Artificial Analysis’ averages over its whole Intelligence Index run.

MeasureClaude Opus 5.5 (max)DeepSeek V4 Pro (high)
Blended price per 1M tokens$8.00$0.990
Input / output per 1M$4.00 / $20.00$0.660 / $1.98
Cached input per 1M$0.200$0.022
Price per task: chat reply$0.0076$0.0009
Price per task: summarize a 30-page report$0.060$0.0091
Price per task: code edit$0.054$0.0069
Price per task: agentic coding session$0.320$0.048
Price per task: structured extraction$0.012$0.0017
Agentic coding session, input mostly cached$0.149$0.019
Cost per benchmark task (AA Index)$10.04–
Output tokens per task (AA Index)173k–
Of which reasoning120k–
Time per task (AA Index)25 min–
Output speed115 tok/s44 tok/s
Time to first answer380.6 s1.5 s
Time to a complete answer771.1 s–

Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Claude Opus 5.5 (max) scores 68.9 and takes 381 s to its first answer token; Claude Opus 5.5 (xhigh) scores 65.5 in 84 s, Claude Opus 5.5 (high) scores 65.4 in 28 s. DeepSeek V4 Pro (high) scores 59.1 and takes 1 s to its first answer token; DeepSeek V4 Pro (max) scores 56.9 in 74 s, DeepSeek V4 Pro scores 53.3 in 1 s. Higher effort means more thinking before the answer: better scores, longer waits and more tokens billed. How reasoning effort changes scores and cost.

Every benchmark

162 benchmarks, grouped by category; each name links to the board and its leaders. † measured at another effort setting of the same model, shown for reference and not counted as a win.

MetricPublisherClaude Opus 5.5 (max)DeepSeek V4 Pro (high)
BenchLeader IndexBenchLeader68.959.1
Agents & tools scoreBenchLeader62.7–
Coding scoreBenchLeader80.453.8
Knowledge scoreBenchLeader73.7–
Long context scoreBenchLeader67.1–
Maths scoreBenchLeader74.064.6
Multimodal scoreBenchLeader70.3–
Reasoning scoreBenchLeader72.362.2
Human preference scoreBenchLeader–65.1
Blended price $/MBenchLeader$8.00$0.990
Output speedBenchLeader115 tok/s44 tok/s
Time to first answerBenchLeader380.6 s1.5 s
Context windowBenchLeader1,000,000 tokens1,048,576 tokens
Reasoning
GPQA DiamondEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub90.6%90.9%
Arena Hard PromptsArena (LMArena)1530†1482
LiveBench 2.0 ReasoningLiveBench92.2%†–
LiveBench 1.0 ReasoningLiveBench92.2%85.8%†
GPQA Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis–92.8%†
Humanity's Last Exam (AA)Artificial Analysis61.4%41.0%†
HLE-Diamond (AA)Artificial Analysis67.9%19.5%†
GPQA Diamond (Vals)Vals AI–92.4%†
Kagi LLM BenchmarkKagi LLM Benchmark–53.5%†
ARC-AGI-1ARC Prize97.5%87.2%
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize91.7%59.7%
CritPtArtificial Analysis31.7%18.0%†
CritPt v2 hard subset (AA)Artificial Analysis68.0%23.5%†
MysteryMechanismVals AI49.5%†–
Chess PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub67.0%16.0%
Mystery Game PuzzlesEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub71.0%43.0%†
CL-bench LifeEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–13.5%
LMCAEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub68.2%45.5%†
DTBenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub98.9%93.9%†
ForecastBenchForecastBench–60.7%†
Coding
SWE-bench Verified (Epoch)Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub–77.6%†
SciCodeSciCode66.9%46.4%
WeirdMLWeirdML–46.5%
FrontierCodeCognition54.6%†28.6%
Arena CodingArena (LMArena)1546†1503
Show all 162 benchmarks
MetricPublisherClaude Opus 5.5 (max)DeepSeek V4 Pro (high)
Coding
Arena WebDevArena (LMArena)18181581
LiveBench 2.0 CodingLiveBench87.1%†–
LiveBench 1.0 CodingLiveBench89.3%77.2%†
SciCode (AA)Artificial Analysis66.9%51.0%†
LiveCodeBenchVals AI–87.5%†
IOIVals AI95.1%†51.6%†
SWE-bench (Vals)Vals AI–96.4%†
Code MigrationVals AI66.7%†41.5%†
Code Migration v1.1Vals AI81.0%†52.0%†
ProgramBenchVals AI18.5%†0.0%†
SWE-bench MultimodalVals AI70.2%†–
Vibe Code Bench 1-100Vals AI30.4%†17.5%†
Vibe Code Bench v1.1Vals AI90.3%†82.3%†
SWE Atlas: Codebase QnAScale AI SEAL–27.1%†
SWE Atlas: Test WritingScale AI SEAL–27.1%†
MirrorCodeEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub78.9%†–
Surface Evolver BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub–40.0%
CursorBenchCursor57.8%–
ALE-BenchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub2147.4†1006.1
FrontierSWEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub62.3%–
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis59.6%14.1%†
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis–78.7%†
Startrise FrontendStartrise71.1%†62.7%†
GameBench 2 OverallDuelLab GameBench 287.6†42.0†
GameBench 2 by reasoning settingDuelLab GameBench 294.8†45.0
Design Arena WebsiteDesign Arena1325†1231†
FrontierCode 1.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis52.2%38.8%†
FrontierCode 2.0 (AA)Artificial Analysis46.4%17.1%†
Agents & tools
Terminal-BenchTerminal-Bench65.8%–
Remote Labor IndexScale AI / CAIS21.3%†–
APEX-AgentsMercor73.5%47.3%†
Arena AgentArena (LMArena)20–
LiveBench Long AgenticLiveBench72.8%†–
LiveBench BrowserLiveBench88.4%†–
LiveBench Agentic CodingLiveBench71.7%55.0%†
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)Vals AI87.6%†50.2%†
MCP AtlasScale AI SEAL85.4%†–
HiL-BenchScale AI SEAL59.0%†38.5%†
GDPval-AA v2.1, normalised scoreArtificial Analysis68.3%47.5%†
GDPval-AA v2.1Artificial Analysis18661457†
τ³-Banking (AA)Artificial Analysis–39.6%†
ITBench SRE (AA)Artificial Analysis38.2%–
Analyst Agent (AA)Artificial Analysis56.3%–
CUA-benchVals AI14.0%–
CyberBenchVals AI55.4%†72.9%†
Finance Agent v2Vals AI58.6%†50.4%†
Finance Agent v2.1Vals AI67.8%†57.1%†
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1Vals AI9.2%†10.8%†
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1Vals AI3.8%†7.5%†
Legal Research BenchVals AI50.5%†40.9%†
Robo-benchVals AI14.6%–
SkillsBenchVals AI–53.8%†
SREBenchVals AI33.6%†1.9%†
Tax Agent BenchVals AI44.5%†26.8%†
Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Vals)Vals AI–56.2%†
Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals)Vals AI65.2%†14.1%†
Terminal-Bench ScienceVals AI47.1%†4.3%†
Time Horizon Index: KSPVals AI91.3%†–
Arena SearchArena (LMArena)1214†–
Vending-Bench 2Andon Labs9235.3†3284.5†
AutomationBenchArtificial Analysis69.5%56.7%†
GDP.pdf (AA)Artificial Analysis26.2%11.4%†
Harvey LAB-AA v1.1Harvey4.2%–
EnterpriseOps-GymArtificial Analysis–49.6%†
AA-Briefcase v1.1Artificial Analysis18001253†
GDPxGDPx by SemiAnalysis12.0%–
Design Arena AgenticDesign Arena1334†921†
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA)Artificial Analysis59.0%5.7%†
CWE-Bench (AA)Artificial Analysis58.3%–
DeepSec-Bench (AA)Artificial Analysis26.9%–
CyberGym end-to-end (AA)Artificial Analysis0.8%–
FACTS SearchGoogle88.4%†–
Maths
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub91.2%64.6%†
FrontierMath Tier 4Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub95.0%26.8%†
OTIS Mock AIMEEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub100.0%95.6%
ProofBenchVals AI100.0%50.0%†
LiveBench MathematicsLiveBench97.1%95.1%†
AIME 2026MathArena–96.7%†
HMMT February 2026MathArena–93.9%†
USAMO 2026MathArena–60.7%†
MathArena ApexMathArena–28.1%†
Arena MathsArena (LMArena)1518†1465
Knowledge
SimpleQA VerifiedEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub72.2%52.9%†
LiveBench 2.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench80.3%†–
LiveBench ResearchLiveBench88.9%†–
LiveBench 1.0 Data AnalysisLiveBench80.3%79.2%†
AA-Omniscience v1.1Artificial Analysis48.1-6.4†
MMLU-ProVals AI–87.3%†
LegalBenchVals AI–82.4%†
CorpFinVals AI–65.4%†
TaxEvalVals AI–73.1%†
PRBench LegalScale AI SEAL47.6%†–
BioMysteryBenchVals AI79.3%†–
CaseLaw v2Vals AI–59.4%†
ClaimBenchVals AI100.0%†–
Excel Modeling BenchmarkVals AI75.9%†52.8%†
Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1Vals AI75.8%†65.1%†
MedCodeVals AI49.8%†42.5%†
MedScribeVals AI91.4%†80.2%†
Public Benefits Bench v1.1Vals AI70.6%†62.9%†
DrugDiscoveryBenchScale AI SEAL–31.7%†
EBR-benchEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub71.4%–
GDP.pdfEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub30.6%–
AA-Omniscience v1.1: accuracyArtificial Analysis65.5%45.2%†
AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucinationArtificial Analysis49.7%5.9%†
HealthBench Professional (AA)OpenAI59.9%–
Instruction following
LiveBench LanguageLiveBench86.3%82.1%†
LiveBench Instruction FollowingLiveBench65.7%67.7%†
Arena Instruction FollowingArena (LMArena)1519†1461
Human preference
Arena TextArena (LMArena)1506†1464
EQ-Bench 4EQ-Bench1340†1156†
Arena Creative WritingArena (LMArena)1517†1444
Arena Multi-turnArena (LMArena)1500†1469
Arena Longer QueriesArena (LMArena)1520†1474
Multimodal
Arena VisionArena (LMArena)1324†–
LiveBench DesignLiveBench83.3%†–
MMMU-ProArtificial Analysis87.7%–
SAGEVals AI91.3%†–
Blueprint-Bench 2Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub51.2%†–
Code2Video-AAArtificial Analysis1536–
AA-3DArtificial Analysis1202–
Long context
AA-LCR v1.1Artificial Analysis84.7%80.3%†
MLCRArtificial Analysis27.8%–
Composite
Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch AI Benchmarking Hub168.4†155.9†
LiveBench 2.0LiveBench83.4%†–
LiveBench 1.0LiveBench83.2%77.4%†
AA Intelligence Index v5.0Artificial Analysis59.123.1†
AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2Artificial Analysis57.636†
AA Progress Index v1Artificial Analysis350311.5†
Vals IndexVals AI70.1†53.0†
Vals Finance IndexVals AI65.3%†52.9%†
Vals RSI IndexVals AI37.3%–
Vals Science IndexVals AI58.6%†–
Vals Router IndexVals AI64.2%†53.0%†
AA Cyber IndexArtificial Analysis28.7–
Safety & honesty
FORTRESSScale AI SEAL5.8%–
Metadata
AA Openness IndexArtificial Analysis–44.4†

Data as of 2026-11-09. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.

DuelLab GameBench 2, release gb2-20261103-eaea31df94e6 (https://benchmarks.duellab.org/releases/gb2-20261103-eaea31df94e6/), CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Scores mapped to BenchLeader model names; not endorsed by DuelLab.

What changed

  • DeepSeek V4 Pro (high): BenchLeader Index 57.5 → 59.1.
  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max): 2 score revisions.
  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max): 1 score revision.
  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max): 1 score revision.
  • DeepSeek V4 Pro (high): 1 score revision.
  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max): 2 score revisions.
  • DeepSeek V4 Pro (high): 1 score revision.
  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max): 2 score revisions.
  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max): 1 score revision.
  • Claude Opus 5.5 (max): 5 new results (AA Intelligence Index v5.0, AA Progress Index v1, HLE-Diamond (AA)…); 3 score revisions; cost per task moved from $5.98/M to $10.04/M (68% up).

Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for coding · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs

Claude Opus 5.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro: questions

Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than DeepSeek V4 Pro?
Claude Opus 5.5 (max) leads on quality: 68.9 vs 59.1. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Opus 5.5 (max) is ahead overall as of 9 Nov 2026, but check the category scores for your use.
Claude Opus 5.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro: which is cheaper, and will that change?
DeepSeek V4 Pro is cheaper today: $0.990 against $8.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token. No price change has been announced for either.
Is Claude Opus 5.5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro better for coding?
Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher in coding (80 vs 54 on the category index, where 50 is average). On Arena WebDev, the top shared coding benchmark, it is 1818 for Claude Opus 5.5 against 1581 for DeepSeek V4 Pro.
Which is faster, Claude Opus 5.5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro?
Claude Opus 5.5 streams ~2× faster (115 vs 44 output tokens per second, Artificial Analysis 7-day median).
Which is better for long documents?
Both take about 1M tokens: Claude Opus 5.5 1,000,000, DeepSeek V4 Pro 1,048,576.
More questions (3)
Which has lower latency?
DeepSeek V4 Pro answers first: 1.5 s against 380.6 s to the first answer token, as Artificial Analysis measures it. Reasoning effort drives most of this: a higher setting thinks longer before it answers.
Do independent benchmarks agree on Claude Opus 5.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro?
Across the 7 benchmarks both have, Claude Opus 5.5 leads 6, DeepSeek V4 Pro leads 1. Every overall index that rates both puts Claude Opus 5.5 ahead.
When was Claude Opus 5.5 released?
Claude Opus 5.5 was released on 22 Sep 2026.