Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.4 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 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.4

Rank #17 Confirmed

DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale DeepSeek

39.1

Rank #159 Reported

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 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 4.7 leads 75.3 to 46.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is WeirdML: 76.4% for Claude Opus 4.7 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 4.7.
  • Claude Opus 4.7 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 4.7DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
ProviderAnthropicDeepSeek
Noometry Index58.439.1
Released2026-04-142025-12-01
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M128K
Max output128K128K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.58
Output $ / M tokens$25$1.68
Results tracked663

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 59.9 (#10), DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: 39.9 (#136)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
WeirdML76.4%46.7%
SWE-bench Verified83.5%—
FrontierCode38.5%—
LMArena WebDev1557—
SciCode54.5%—
GSO44.1%—
LMArena Coding1519—
MirrorCode31.1%—
ALE-Bench1,323—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#8), DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
Terminal-Bench80.2%—
APEX-Agents49.2%—
OSWorld 2.018.2%—
τ²-bench Banking40.2%—
PostTrainBench28.6%—
ExploitBench26.5%—
GBAEval43.8%—
GDP.pdf21%—
LMArena Search1233—
Vending-Bench 210,937—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 53.7 (#24), DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: 32.1 (#65)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
SimpleBench61.7%52.6%
ARC-AGI-275.8%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.7%—
NYT Connections (extended)39%—
ARC-AGI-193.5%—
CritPt12%—
Chess Puzzles30%—
Thematic Generalization72.8%—
EBR-Bench19%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1507—
Mystery Game Puzzles28%—
DTBench94.7%—
LMCA52.2%—
Epoch Capabilities Index156.39—
ForecastBench60.3—

Math Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.5 (#20), DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)70.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions73.6%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%—
ProofBench54%—
LMArena Math1499—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)43.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#20), DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
GPQA Diamond90.2%—
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%—
SimpleQA Verified51.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%—
LMArena Expert1521—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.5 (#29), DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
LMArena Vision1317—
Blueprint-Bench 224.5%—
Furniture Assembly33.3%—
LMArena Document1495—

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 57.5 (#9), DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
LMArena Non-English1481—
LMArena Chinese1530—
LMArena French1505—
LMArena German1494—
LMArena Japanese1472—
LMArena Korean1466—
LMArena Russian1494—
LMArena Spanish1497—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.6 (#9), DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
LMArena Instruction Following1498—

Long Context Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.1 (#24), DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
LMArena Longer Query1505—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.3 (#8), DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale: 46.1 (#217)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale
EQ-Bench Creative Writing19141276
LMArena Text1491—
LMArena Creative Writing1486—
EQ-Bench 41311—
LMArena Multi-Turn1506—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.4 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 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 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 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 or DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.9 versus 39.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.7 does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and DeepSeek-V3.2-Speciale has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper