Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Deepseek Coder v2
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 35.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeekSummary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher in 8 categories and Deepseek Coder v2 in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.8 leads 78.4 to 34.9.
- Deepseek Coder v2 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.8 | Deepseek Coder v2 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | DeepSeek |
| Noometry Index | 60.7 | 35.9 |
| Released | 2026-05-28 | 2024-06-17 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | — |
| Results tracked | 65 | 24 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 59.9 (#12), Deepseek Coder v2: 38.1 (#183)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Deepseek Coder v2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1490 | 1251 |
| DeepSWE | 59% | — |
| FrontierCode | 46.5% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1556 | — |
| SciCode | 53.5% | — |
| GSO | 47.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 82.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 48.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 59.7% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,564 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 82.3% |
| MBPP+ | — | 75.1% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#11), Deepseek Coder v2: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Deepseek Coder v2 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 48.9% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 20.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 8.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 39.7% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 50.2% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 33.8% | — |
| GBAEval | 70.9% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1204 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,787 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 64.7 (#16), Deepseek Coder v2: 23.6 (#176)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Deepseek Coder v2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1482 | 1207 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 72.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 64.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 88.8% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 91.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 92.5% | — |
| CritPt | 20.9% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 34% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 23.5% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 28.6% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 36% | — |
| DTBench | 94.9% | — |
| LMCA | 57.5% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 87.5% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.14 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 158.21 | — |
| ForecastBench | 59.9 | — |
| WinoGrande | — | 83.7% |
Math Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 78.4 (#13), Deepseek Coder v2: 34.9 (#190)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Deepseek Coder v2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1487 | 1241 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 80% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 56.1% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 91.8% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 69% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 47.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 31.3% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 94.5% |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 61.3 (#29), Deepseek Coder v2: 32.3 (#212)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Deepseek Coder v2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1502 | 1181 |
| GPQA Diamond | 91% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 53% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 64.3% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 42.9 (#26), Deepseek Coder v2: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Deepseek Coder v2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1294 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 14.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 42.5% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1475 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 55.2 (#33), Deepseek Coder v2: 36.3 (#240)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Deepseek Coder v2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1450 | 1182 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | 1201 |
| LMArena French | 1481 | 1185 |
| LMArena German | 1472 | 1164 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1440 | 1126 |
| LMArena Korean | 1432 | 1104 |
| LMArena Russian | 1474 | 1188 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1466 | 1153 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 77.4 (#24), Deepseek Coder v2: 61.7 (#242)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Deepseek Coder v2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1476 | 1180 |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#35), Deepseek Coder v2: 37.0 (#224)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Deepseek Coder v2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1483 | 1219 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 72.0 (#16), Deepseek Coder v2: 38.2 (#253)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Deepseek Coder v2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1461 | 1191 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1120 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1476 | 1177 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1840 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1281 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Deepseek Coder v2?
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 35.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 4.8 or Deepseek Coder v2 better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.9 versus 38.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.8 and Deepseek Coder v2 share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.8 has 65 scored results on Noometry and Deepseek Coder v2 has 24.