Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 52.8 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash costs 38× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 33 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic

58.2

Rank #20 Confirmed

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash DeepSeek

52.8

Rank #38 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 33 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 8 categories and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash in 2 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 51.1 to 31.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Mystery Game Puzzles: 25% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 43% for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash.
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.6.
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
ProviderAnthropicDeepSeek
Noometry Index58.252.8
Released2026-02-042026-09-09
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M1M
Max output128K393K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.15
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.60
Results tracked6837

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 V4.1 Flash: 52.9 (#32)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
LMArena WebDev15471619
LMArena Coding15361506
ALE-Bench996.51,092
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
FrontierCode26.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)75.6%—
SWE-bench Multilingual72%—
SciCode—51.9%
GSO41.2%—
WeirdML78%—
AlgoTune1.47—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 31.2 (#69)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
APEX-Agents46.3%39.5%
Terminal-Bench79.8%—
Remote Labor Index4.2%—
τ²-bench Banking27.3%—
Cybench93%—
DeepResearch Bench55.3%—
GBAEval44.1%—
GDP.pdf—19.8%
LMArena Search1253—
METR Time Horizons78.9%—
Vending-Bench 28,018—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.8 (#23), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 50.2 (#36)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
NYT Connections (extended)92.1%89.6%
LMArena Hard Prompts15271483
Mystery Game Puzzles25%43%
DTBench91.2%89.9%
LMCA55.8%47%
Epoch Capabilities Index155.24154.9
ARC-AGI-269.2%—
SimpleBench67.6%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.6%—
ARC-AGI-194%—
CritPt—14.3%
Chess Puzzles17%—
EnigmaEval7.6%—
Thematic Generalization80.6%—
EBR-Bench12.7%—
Surface Evolver Bench—46.3%
ForecastBench60—

Math DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 66.7 (#25)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%67.4%
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%26.8%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.4%98.3%
ProofBench50%54%
LMArena Math15191477
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions78.5%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)40.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 57.9 (#38)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
GPQA Diamond90.5%89.8%
LMArena Expert15461506
Humanity's Last Exam34.4%—
SimpleQA Verified47%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.2%—

Multimodal DeepSeek V4.1 Flash leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 39.1 (#61)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
LMArena Vision13161277
Furniture Assembly28.3%34.2%
LMArena Document1507—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 55.0 (#35)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
LMArena Non-English14891448
LMArena Chinese15511497
LMArena French15131452
LMArena German15021484
LMArena Japanese14841412
LMArena Korean14641452
LMArena Russian14971471
LMArena Spanish15101459

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 77.3 (#26)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following15231474

Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 45.2 (#47)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
LMArena Longer Query15201475
CL-bench20.7%—
CL-bench Life17%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 65.4 (#48)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
LMArena Text15031462
LMArena Creative Writing15051435
EQ-Bench Creative Writing18091540
LMArena Multi-Turn15131457
EQ-Bench 41223—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than DeepSeek V4.1 Flash?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 52.8 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash costs 38× 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 V4.1 Flash?

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 52.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 1M tokens.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash share?

33 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has 37.

Related comparisons

Go deeper