Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 vs DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale

Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale costs 12× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.5 Anthropic

50.5

Rank #39 Confirmed

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale DeepSeek

39.1

Rank #159 Reported

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher in 3 categories and DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Claude Opus 4.5 leads 68.2 to 46.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is WeirdML: 63.7% for Claude Opus 4.5 and 46.7% for DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale.
  • DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale is cheaper at $0.58 / $1.68 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.5.
  • Claude Opus 4.5 accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 128K.
  • DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.5DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
ProviderAnthropicDeepSeek
Noometry Index50.539.1
Released2025-11-012025-12-01
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window200K128K
Max output64K128K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.58
Output $ / M tokens$25$1.68
Results tracked693

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 55.4 (#21), DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: 39.9 (#136)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
WeirdML63.7%46.7%
SWE-bench Verified76.7%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)76.8%—
LMArena WebDev1493—
SWE-bench Multilingual70.7%—
GSO26.5%—
LMArena Coding1504—
ALE-Bench1,025—
AlgoTune1.77—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 47.2 (#11), DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
Terminal-Bench63.1%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard77.5%—
GDPval45.5%—
Remote Labor Index3.8%—
τ²-bench Airline84%—
τ²-bench Banking24.7%—
τ²-bench Retail79.6%—
τ²-bench Telecom92.3%—
Cybench82%—
DeepResearch Bench54.8%—
OSWorld66.3%—
BALROG43.5%—
LMArena Search1180—
METR Time Horizons75%—
Vending-Bench 24,967—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 42.5 (#43), DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: 32.1 (#65)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
SimpleBench62%52.6%
ARC-AGI-237.6%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.2%—
NYT Connections (extended)52.5%—
ARC-AGI-180%—
Chess Puzzles12%—
EnigmaEval11.9%—
EBR-Bench14.3%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1476—
Mystery Game Puzzles22%—
DTBench89.9%—
LMCA44.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index150.1—
ForecastBench60.7—

Math Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 38.5 (#85), DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)34.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 44.9%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202586.1%—
ProofBench36%—
LMArena Math1463—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)20.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%—

Knowledge Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 56.4 (#38), DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
GPQA Diamond86%—
Humanity's Last Exam25.2%—
SimpleQA Verified45.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.9%—
LMArena Expert1488—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 31.1 (#99), DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
GeoBench75%—
VPCT40%—
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1462—

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 54.5 (#45), DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
LMArena Non-English1438—
LMArena Chinese1470—
LMArena French1471—
LMArena German1449—
LMArena Japanese1415—
LMArena Korean1424—
LMArena Russian1448—
LMArena Spanish1455—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 77.7 (#20), DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
LMArena Instruction Following1478—

Long Context Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.5: 46.4 (#21), DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
CL-bench21.1%—
LMArena Longer Query1480—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.5 leads

Claude Opus 4.5: 68.2 (#28), DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: 46.1 (#217)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.5DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
EQ-Bench Creative Writing16871276
LMArena Text1451—
LMArena Creative Writing1445—
LMArena Multi-Turn1466—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale?

Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 39.1 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale costs 12× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.5 or DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale?

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale is cheaper. It lists at $0.58 per million input tokens and $1.68 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.5 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.5 or DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.4 versus 39.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.5 does, with 200K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.5 and DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.5 has 69 scored results on Noometry and DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper