Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 39.7 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale costs 12× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic

58.2

Rank #20 Confirmed

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale DeepSeek

39.7

Rank #162 Reported

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 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 4.6 leads 73.5 to 46.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is WeirdML: 78% for Claude Opus 4.6 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 4.6.
  • Claude Opus 4.6 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
  • DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
ProviderAnthropicDeepSeek
Noometry Index58.239.7
Released2026-02-042025-12-01
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M128K
Max output128K128K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.58
Output $ / M tokens$25$1.68
Results tracked683

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: 57.2 (#20), DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: 40.4 (#140)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
WeirdML78%46.7%
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
FrontierCode26.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)75.6%—
LMArena WebDev1547—
SWE-bench Multilingual72%—
GSO41.2%—
LMArena Coding1536—
ALE-Bench996.5—
AlgoTune1.47—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4), DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
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: 57.8 (#23), DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: 32.9 (#73)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
SimpleBench67.6%52.6%
ARC-AGI-269.2%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.6%—
NYT Connections (extended)92.1%—
ARC-AGI-194%—
Chess Puzzles17%—
EnigmaEval7.6%—
Thematic Generalization80.6%—
EBR-Bench12.7%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1527—
Mystery Game Puzzles25%—
DTBench91.2%—
LMCA55.8%—
Epoch Capabilities Index155.24—
ForecastBench60—

Math Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31), DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%—
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions78.5%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.4%—
ProofBench50%—
LMArena Math1519—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)40.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26), DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —

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

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74), DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
LMArena Vision1316—
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1507—

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
LMArena Non-English1489—
LMArena Chinese1551—
LMArena French1513—
LMArena German1502—
LMArena Japanese1484—
LMArena Korean1464—
LMArena Russian1497—
LMArena Spanish1510—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
LMArena Instruction Following1523—

Long Context Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
CL-bench20.7%—
CL-bench Life17%—
LMArena Longer Query1520—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: 46.0 (#222)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
EQ-Bench Creative Writing18091276
LMArena Text1503—
LMArena Creative Writing1505—
EQ-Bench 41223—
LMArena Multi-Turn1513—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 39.7 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale costs 12× 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-V3.2-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 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 or DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 40.4 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.6 does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper