Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 42.6 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus costs 21× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic

58.3

Rank #18 Confirmed

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus DeepSeek

42.6

Rank #96 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 7 categories and DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 57.7 to 25.7.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 55.8% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 28.6% for DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus.
  • DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus is cheaper at $0.30 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.6.
  • Claude Opus 4.6 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 164K.
  • DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus
ProviderAnthropicDeepSeek
Noometry Index58.342.6
Released2026-02-042025-09-22
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M164K
Max output128K66K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.30
Output $ / M tokens$25$1
Results tracked6816

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.7 (#15), DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 41.5 (#114)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus
LMArena Coding15351426
ALE-Bench996.5745.17
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
FrontierCode26.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)75.6%—
LMArena WebDev1546—
SWE-bench Multilingual72%—
SciCode—40.6%
GSO41.2%—
WeirdML78%—
AlgoTune1.47—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 51.0 (#4), DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus
Terminal-Bench79.8%—
APEX-Agents46.3%—
Remote Labor Index4.2%—
τ²-bench Banking27.3%—
Cybench93%—
DeepResearch Bench55.3%—
GBAEval44.1%—
LMArena Search1253—
METR Time Horizons78.9%—
Vending-Bench 28,018—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.7 (#21), DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 25.7 (#126)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.6%57.4%
LMArena Hard Prompts15271427
DTBench91.2%81.3%
LMCA55.8%28.6%
ARC-AGI-269.2%—
SimpleBench67.6%—
NYT Connections (extended)92.1%—
ARC-AGI-194%—
CritPt—1.7%
Chess Puzzles17%—
EnigmaEval7.6%—
Thematic Generalization80.6%—
EBR-Bench12.7%—
Mystery Game Puzzles25%—
Epoch Capabilities Index155.36—
ForecastBench60—

Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 62.7 (#25), DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 35.7 (#138)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus
LMArena Math15171402
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%—
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions78.5%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.4%—
ProofBench50%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)40.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 61.8 (#23), DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus
GPQA Diamond90.5%—
Humanity's Last Exam34.4%—
SimpleQA Verified47%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.2%—
LMArena Expert1546—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 37.0 (#67), DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus
LMArena Vision1316—
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1507—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 58.2 (#4), DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 52.3 (#87)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus
LMArena Non-English14901407
LMArena Russian14971434
LMArena Chinese1551—
LMArena French1513—
LMArena German1504—
LMArena Japanese1484—
LMArena Korean1465—
LMArena Spanish1512—

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 79.7 (#3), DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 74.4 (#96)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus
LMArena Instruction Following15231406

Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 43.5 (#88)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus
LMArena Longer Query15201426
CL-bench20.7%—
CL-bench Life17%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 73.7 (#9), DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 61.3 (#87)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus
LMArena Text15041420
LMArena Creative Writing15061404
LMArena Multi-Turn15141411
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1809—
EQ-Bench 41223—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 42.6 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus costs 21× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus?

DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $1 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 or DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.7 versus 41.5 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.6 does, with 1M tokens against 164K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus has 16.

Related comparisons

Go deeper