# Claude Opus 4.1 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash

> DeepSeek V4 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.6 to 40.8 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-4-1-vs-deepseek-v4-flash
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 30

## Summary

- They share 30 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 2 categories and DeepSeek V4 Flash in 6 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where DeepSeek V4 Flash leads 60.0 to 22.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 12.6% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 57.5% for DeepSeek V4 Flash.
- DeepSeek V4 Flash is cheaper at $0.15 / $0.60 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
- DeepSeek V4 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
- DeepSeek V4 Flash has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 4.1 | DeepSeek V4 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | DeepSeek |
| Noometry Index | 40.8 | 53.6 |
| Rank | 136 | 32 |
| Context | 200K | 1M |
| Input $/M | $15 | $0.15 |
| Output $/M | $75 | $0.60 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 4.1: 44.3 (#69)
- DeepSeek V4 Flash: 47.6 (#56)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | DeepSeek V4 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | 1581 |
| WeirdML | 45.9% | 63% |
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | 1457 |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | 1,306 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | — |
| FrontierCode | — | 18.8% |
| SciCode | — | 49.9% |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 4.1: 34.8 (#38)
- DeepSeek V4 Flash: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | DeepSeek V4 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | — |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 4.1: 31.6 (#70)
- DeepSeek V4 Flash: 53.7 (#25)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | DeepSeek V4 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 60% | 61.1% |
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | 33% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1443 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | 34% |
| DTBench | 80% | 90.9% |
| LMCA | 37.1% | 41.7% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.11 | 154.51 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 61.4% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 52.2% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 89.6% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 89% |
| CritPt | — | 16.6% |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |
| ForecastBench | 62 | — |

## Math

- Claude Opus 4.1: 22.0 (#267)
- DeepSeek V4 Flash: 60.0 (#31)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | DeepSeek V4 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | 57.5% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | 24.4% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | 94.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1430 | 1427 |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 76.5% |
| ProofBench | — | 56% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 4.1: 41.9 (#93)
- DeepSeek V4 Flash: 55.5 (#43)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | DeepSeek V4 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | 91% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1441 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 33.6% |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 4.1: 26.2 (#114)
- DeepSeek V4 Flash: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | DeepSeek V4 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| VPCT | 35% | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 4.1: 52.1 (#90)
- DeepSeek V4 Flash: 53.2 (#71)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | DeepSeek V4 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1420 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | 1467 |
| LMArena French | 1432 | 1438 |
| LMArena German | 1412 | 1418 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | 1403 |
| LMArena Korean | 1381 | 1383 |
| LMArena Russian | 1421 | 1428 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1437 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 4.1: 75.8 (#53)
- DeepSeek V4 Flash: 75.1 (#76)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | DeepSeek V4 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1436 | 1421 |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#60)
- DeepSeek V4 Flash: 43.8 (#81)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | DeepSeek V4 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1435 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 4.1: 62.6 (#70)
- DeepSeek V4 Flash: 64.0 (#59)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | DeepSeek V4 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1432 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | 1403 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1449 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1559 |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than DeepSeek V4 Flash?

DeepSeek V4 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 53.6 to 40.8 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or DeepSeek V4 Flash?

DeepSeek V4 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.

### Is Claude Opus 4.1 or DeepSeek V4 Flash better for coding?

DeepSeek V4 Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.6 versus 44.3 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

DeepSeek V4 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and DeepSeek V4 Flash share?

30 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and DeepSeek V4 Flash has 41.