Claude Opus 5 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
Claude Opus 5 
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash Verdict
- Claude Opus 5 (high) leads on quality: 70.2 vs 61.9.
- Claude Opus 5 (high) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, composite, human preference, knowledge, maths, multimodal, reasoning.
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) is stronger in long context.
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) is 38× cheaper ($0.262 vs $10.00 per 1M blended).
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) streams 4.0× faster (215 vs 54 tokens per second).
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 (high) | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) |
|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 70.2 | 61.9 |
| Agents & tools score | 66.0 | 59.6 |
| Coding score | 71.9 | 68.9 |
| Composite score | 90.2 | 74.5 |
| Human preference score | 69.7 | – |
| Knowledge score | 80.3 | 61.7 |
| Long context score | 65.9 | 68.5 |
| Maths score | 72.3 | – |
| Multimodal score | 67.6 | 61.4 |
| Reasoning score | 75.6 | 69.5 |
| Blended price $/M | $10.00 | $0.262 |
| Output speed | 54 tok/s | 215 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 16.7 s | 10.5 s |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Terminal-Bench | 50.3% | – |
| OSWorld-Verified 2.0 | 29.0% | – |
| SciCode | 54.3% | – |
| WeirdML | 91.6% | – |
| LMArena Text | 1493 | – |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1517 | – |
| LMArena Coding | 1533 | – |
| LMArena WebDev | 1660 | 1614 |
| LMArena Vision | 1321 | – |
| LMArena Agent | 10.2 | 4.9 |
| LiveBench | – | 81.1% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | – | 86.7% |
| LiveBench Coding | – | 80.0% |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | – | 77.3% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | – | 93.3% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | – | 79.3% |
| LiveBench Language | – | 81.2% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | – | 70.0% |
| AA Intelligence Index | 48.2 | 39.5 |
| AA-LCR | 79.0% | 84.0% |
| MMMU-Pro | 82.4% | 77.0% |
| AA-Omniscience | 33.7 | -5.3 |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | 93.7% | – |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | 52.8% | 39.3% |
| SciCode (AA) | 55.4% | 51.9% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | – |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 88.3% | – |
| ARC-AGI-3 | 30.2% | – |
| CritPt | 28.3% | 14.3% |
| GDPval (AA) | 56.5% | 56.6% |
| τ²-Bench Banking (AA) | 44.7% | – |
| LMArena Maths | 1525 | – |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1474 | – |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1499 | – |
| LMArena Multi-turn | 1484 | – |
| LMArena Longer Queries | 1508 | – |
| LMArena Document | 1490 | – |
| DeepSWE | 72.8% | – |
| CursorBench | 66.7% | – |
| ALE-Bench | 2164.6 | – |
Data as of 2026-09-19. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
Claude Opus 5 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: questions
- Is Claude Opus 5 better than DeepSeek V4.1 Flash?
- Claude Opus 5 (high) leads on quality: 70.2 vs 61.9. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; Claude Opus 5 (high) is ahead overall as of 2026-09-19, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is Claude Opus 5 better than DeepSeek V4.1 Flash for coding?
- Claude Opus 5 scores higher in coding (72 vs 69 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Is Claude Opus 5 better than DeepSeek V4.1 Flash for agentic tasks?
- Claude Opus 5 scores higher in agentic tasks (66 vs 60 on the category index, where 50 is average).
- Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash?
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper: $0.262 against $10.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token.
- Which is faster, Claude Opus 5 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash?
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash streams faster: 215 against 54 output tokens per second.
- Which has the larger context window?
- Both accept 1M tokens of context.