# Claude Opus 4.7 vs Deepseek Coder v2

> Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 35.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-4-7-vs-deepseek-coder-v2
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 17

## Summary

- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 8 categories and Deepseek Coder v2 in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 75.1 to 38.2.
- Deepseek Coder v2 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 4.7 | Deepseek Coder v2 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | DeepSeek |
| Noometry Index | 58.3 | 35.9 |
| Rank | 19 | 220 |
| Context | 1M | — |
| Input $/M | $5 | — |
| Output $/M | $25 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 4.7: 59.6 (#13)
- Deepseek Coder v2: 38.1 (#183)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Deepseek Coder v2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1518 | 1251 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 83.5% | — |
| FrontierCode | 38.5% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1558 | — |
| SciCode | 54.5% | — |
| GSO | 44.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 76.4% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 48.2% |
| MirrorCode | 31.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 59.7% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,323 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 82.3% |
| MBPP+ | — | 75.1% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10)
- Deepseek Coder v2: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Deepseek Coder v2 |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 80.2% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 49.2% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 18.2% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 40.2% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 28.6% | — |
| ExploitBench | 26.5% | — |
| GBAEval | 43.8% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 21% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1233 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 10,937 | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29)
- Deepseek Coder v2: 23.6 (#176)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Deepseek Coder v2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1506 | 1207 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 75.8% | — |
| SimpleBench | 61.7% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 80.7% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 39% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 93.5% | — |
| CritPt | 12% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 30% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 72.8% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 19% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 28% | — |
| DTBench | 94.7% | — |
| LMCA | 52.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.25 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.3 | — |
| WinoGrande | — | 83.7% |

## Math

- Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26)
- Deepseek Coder v2: 34.9 (#190)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Deepseek Coder v2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1499 | 1241 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 70.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 31.7% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 73.6% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 97.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 54% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 43.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 22.9% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 94.5% |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23)
- Deepseek Coder v2: 32.3 (#212)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Deepseek Coder v2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1521 | 1181 |
| GPQA Diamond | 90.2% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 36.2% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 51.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 64.3% |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38)
- Deepseek Coder v2: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Deepseek Coder v2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1316 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 24.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 33.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1495 | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10)
- Deepseek Coder v2: 36.3 (#240)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Deepseek Coder v2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1480 | 1182 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1531 | 1201 |
| LMArena French | 1503 | 1185 |
| LMArena German | 1495 | 1164 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1472 | 1126 |
| LMArena Korean | 1464 | 1104 |
| LMArena Russian | 1494 | 1188 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1495 | 1153 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10)
- Deepseek Coder v2: 61.7 (#242)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Deepseek Coder v2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1498 | 1180 |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25)
- Deepseek Coder v2: 37.0 (#224)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Deepseek Coder v2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1505 | 1219 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8)
- Deepseek Coder v2: 38.2 (#253)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Deepseek Coder v2 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1490 | 1191 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1486 | 1120 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1505 | 1177 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1914 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1311 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Deepseek Coder v2?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 35.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Deepseek Coder v2 better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 38.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and Deepseek Coder v2 share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Deepseek Coder v2 has 24.