Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.4 to 50.3 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash costs 38× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 24 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.4

Rank #17 Confirmed

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash DeepSeek

50.3

Rank #40 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 24 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 8 categories and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 62.6 to 41.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 39% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 89.6% 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 4.7.
  • DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.7DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
ProviderAnthropicDeepSeek
Noometry Index58.450.3
Released2026-04-142026-09-09
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M1M
Max output128K393K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.15
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.60
Results tracked6625

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 V4.1 Flash: 52.8 (#29)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
LMArena WebDev15571620
SciCode54.5%51.9%
LMArena Coding15191511
ALE-Bench1,3231,092
SWE-bench Verified83.5%—
FrontierCode38.5%—
GSO44.1%—
WeirdML76.4%—
MirrorCode31.1%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#8), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
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 V4.1 Flash: 46.2 (#39)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
NYT Connections (extended)39%89.6%
CritPt12%14.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts15071485
DTBench94.7%89.9%
LMCA52.2%47%
Epoch Capabilities Index156.39155.01
ARC-AGI-275.8%—
SimpleBench61.7%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.7%—
ARC-AGI-193.5%—
Chess Puzzles30%—
Thematic Generalization72.8%—
EBR-Bench19%—
Mystery Game Puzzles28%—
Surface Evolver Bench—46.3%
ForecastBench60.3—

Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.5 (#20), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 48.4 (#52)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
ProofBench54%54%
LMArena Math14991493
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)70.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions73.6%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)43.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#20), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 41.6 (#97)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
LMArena Expert15211505
GPQA Diamond90.2%—
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%—
SimpleQA Verified51.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.5 (#29), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
LMArena Vision1317—
Blueprint-Bench 224.5%—
Furniture Assembly33.3%—
LMArena Document1495—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 57.5 (#9), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 55.5 (#29)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
LMArena Non-English14811452
LMArena Chinese15301506
LMArena French15051448
LMArena Russian14941473
LMArena Spanish14971499
LMArena German1494—
LMArena Japanese1472—
LMArena Korean1466—

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.6 (#9), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 77.6 (#24)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following14981475

Long Context Too close to call

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.1 (#24), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 45.2 (#46)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
LMArena Longer Query15051476

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.3 (#8), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: 65.8 (#43)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
LMArena Text14911465
LMArena Creative Writing14861436
EQ-Bench Creative Writing19141540
LMArena Multi-Turn15061460
EQ-Bench 41311—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than DeepSeek V4.1 Flash?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.4 to 50.3 on the Noometry Index. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash costs 38× 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 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 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.9 versus 52.8 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 1M tokens.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash share?

24 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has 25.

Related comparisons

Go deeper