Claude Opus 4.6 vs DeepSeek V3.1
Side-by-side benchmark comparison across coding, math, reasoning, speed, and pricing.
Claude Opus 4.6 by Anthropic wins on 11 of 14 benchmarks against DeepSeek V3.1 by DeepSeek, which leads on 3. This head-to-head comparison covers coding, math, reasoning, speed, and pricing metrics from the AI Value Index.
Category-by-Category Breakdown
General Intelligence: In general intelligence, Claude Opus 4.6 scores 1496 on Chatbot Arena ELO compared to DeepSeek V3.1's 1340, while Claude Opus 4.6 scores 82.0% on MMLU-Pro compared to DeepSeek V3.1's 78.0%.
Coding: In coding, Claude Opus 4.6 scores 93.5% on HumanEval+ compared to DeepSeek V3.1's 84.0%, while Claude Opus 4.6 scores 80.8% on SWE-bench Verified compared to DeepSeek V3.1's 46.0%, while Claude Opus 4.6 scores 72.0% on LiveCodeBench compared to DeepSeek V3.1's 48.0%.
Math: In math, Claude Opus 4.6 scores 92.0% on MATH compared to DeepSeek V3.1's 82.0%, while Claude Opus 4.6 scores 97.0% on GSM8K compared to DeepSeek V3.1's 92.0%.
Reasoning: In reasoning, Claude Opus 4.6 scores 91.3% on GPQA Diamond compared to DeepSeek V3.1's 55.0%, while Claude Opus 4.6 scores 60.0% on ARC-AGI compared to DeepSeek V3.1's 35.0%.
Context: In context, Claude Opus 4.6 scores 200K on Context Length compared to DeepSeek V3.1's 131K.
Pricing Comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 costs $5.0/1M input tokens and $25.0/1M output tokens, while DeepSeek V3.1 costs $0.14/1M input and $0.28/1M output. DeepSeek V3.1 is the more affordable option for API usage.
Speed Comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 generates output at 68 tok/s compared to DeepSeek V3.1's 65 tok/s, and the time to first token is 1680 ms for Claude Opus 4.6 versus 450 ms for DeepSeek V3.1. Claude Opus 4.6 delivers faster throughput.
Verdict
For developers prioritizing coding and general intelligence and math and speed, Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge. For those who value affordability, DeepSeek V3.1 is the stronger choice.
View Individual Model Pages
Claude Opus 4.6 vs DeepSeek V3.1 — FAQ
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or DeepSeek V3.1?
Claude Opus 4.6 wins on more benchmarks overall (11 vs 3). However, the best choice depends on your specific needs — each model excels in different areas.
How does Claude Opus 4.6 compare to DeepSeek V3.1 for coding?
Claude Opus 4.6 is better for coding, scoring 80.8% on SWE-bench Verified compared to 46.0%. SWE-bench tests real-world software engineering by resolving actual GitHub issues.
Is Claude Opus 4.6 cheaper than DeepSeek V3.1?
Yes, DeepSeek V3.1 is cheaper. Claude Opus 4.6 costs $5.0/1M input and $25.0/1M output tokens. DeepSeek V3.1 costs $0.14/1M input and $0.28/1M output tokens.
Which is faster, Claude Opus 4.6 or DeepSeek V3.1?
Claude Opus 4.6 is faster, generating output at 68 tok/s compared to 65 tok/s. Faster output speed means shorter wait times for API responses.
What benchmarks does the Claude Opus 4.6 vs DeepSeek V3.1 comparison cover?
This comparison covers 14 benchmarks including Chatbot Arena ELO, MMLU-Pro, HumanEval+, MATH, SWE-bench Verified, GPQA Diamond, Output Speed, Time to First Token, and more. Metrics span general intelligence, coding, math, reasoning, speed, and cost categories.