# Claude 2.1 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash

> DeepSeek V4 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.6 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-2-1-vs-deepseek-v4-flash
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 5

## Summary

- They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2.1 scores higher in 0 categories and DeepSeek V4 Flash in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where DeepSeek V4 Flash leads 60.3 to 10.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.9% for Claude 2.1 and 94.4% for DeepSeek V4 Flash.
- DeepSeek V4 Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude 2.1 | DeepSeek V4 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | DeepSeek |
| Noometry Index | 25.2 | 53.6 |
| Rank | 345 | 35 |
| Context | — | 1M |
| Input $/M | — | $0.15 |
| Output $/M | — | $0.60 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude 2.1: 26.2 (#327)
- DeepSeek V4 Flash: 47.9 (#59)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | DeepSeek V4 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 7.1% | 63% |
| FrontierCode | — | 18.8% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1582 |
| SciCode | — | 49.9% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1457 |
| ALE-Bench | — | 1,306 |

## Reasoning

- Claude 2.1: 21.4 (#221)
- DeepSeek V4 Flash: 53.7 (#30)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | DeepSeek V4 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 51% | 90.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.27 | 154.49 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 61.4% |
| SimpleBench | — | 61.1% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 52.2% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 89.6% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 89% |
| CritPt | — | 16.6% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 33% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1444 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 34% |
| LMCA | — | 41.7% |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |

## Math

- Claude 2.1: 10.2 (#315)
- DeepSeek V4 Flash: 60.3 (#37)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | DeepSeek V4 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | 94.4% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 57.5% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 24.4% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 76.5% |
| ProofBench | — | 56% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1427 |

## Knowledge

- Claude 2.1: 15.4 (#292)
- DeepSeek V4 Flash: 55.4 (#48)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | DeepSeek V4 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | 91% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 33.6% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1441 |
| MMLU | 73.5% | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude 2.1: —
- DeepSeek V4 Flash: 53.0 (#72)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | DeepSeek V4 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1420 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1468 |
| LMArena French | — | 1439 |
| LMArena German | — | 1418 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1406 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1384 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1428 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1436 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude 2.1: —
- DeepSeek V4 Flash: 74.9 (#81)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | DeepSeek V4 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1421 |

## Long Context

- Claude 2.1: —
- DeepSeek V4 Flash: 43.8 (#85)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | DeepSeek V4 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1434 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude 2.1: —
- DeepSeek V4 Flash: 63.8 (#61)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | DeepSeek V4 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1432 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1403 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1559 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1449 |

## FAQ

### Is Claude 2.1 better than DeepSeek V4 Flash?

DeepSeek V4 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.6 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Claude 2.1 or DeepSeek V4 Flash better for coding?

DeepSeek V4 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.9 versus 26.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and DeepSeek V4 Flash share?

5 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and DeepSeek V4 Flash has 41.