# Claude Opus 4 vs DeepSeek LLM 67B

> Claude Opus 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.1 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-4-vs-deepseek-llm-67b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 14

## Summary

- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4 scores higher in 8 categories and DeepSeek LLM 67B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Claude Opus 4 leads 44.0 to 7.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is MATH Level 5: 85% for Claude Opus 4 and 6.4% for DeepSeek LLM 67B.
- DeepSeek LLM 67B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 4 | DeepSeek LLM 67B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | DeepSeek |
| Noometry Index | 43.1 | 24.9 |
| Rank | 100 | 347 |
| Context | 200K | — |
| Input $/M | $15 | — |
| Output $/M | $75 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 4: 47.2 (#62)
- DeepSeek LLM 67B: 31.9 (#278)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | DeepSeek LLM 67B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1442 | 1096 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 70.7% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 67.6% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 72% | — |
| GSO | 6.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 43.7% | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.33 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 4: 34.8 (#42)
- DeepSeek LLM 67B: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | DeepSeek LLM 67B |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 38% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 46.8% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1127 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 63.9% | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 4: 27.3 (#121)
- DeepSeek LLM 67B: 16.5 (#304)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | DeepSeek LLM 67B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1399 | 1070 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 142.67 | 110.5 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 8.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 58.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 74.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 35.7% | — |
| CritPt | 0.3% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| EnigmaEval | 5.6% | — |
| DTBench | 81.6% | — |
| LMCA | 37.4% | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.1 | — |

## Math

- Claude Opus 4: 42.0 (#86)
- DeepSeek LLM 67B: 8.7 (#324)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | DeepSeek LLM 67B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 64.4% | 0.8% |
| LMArena Math | 1390 | 1108 |
| MATH Level 5 | 85% | 6.4% |
| Omni-MATH | 61.6% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 4.5% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 4: 44.0 (#88)
- DeepSeek LLM 67B: 7.0 (#313)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | DeepSeek LLM 67B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 76.3% | 24.6% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 10.7% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 87.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 15.9% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 70.8% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1386 | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 4: 31.5 (#106)
- DeepSeek LLM 67B: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | DeepSeek LLM 67B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1192 | — |
| GeoBench | 49% | — |
| VPCT | 38% | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 4: 48.8 (#138)
- DeepSeek LLM 67B: 29.4 (#267)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | DeepSeek LLM 67B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1362 | 1073 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1386 | 1132 |
| LMArena French | 1372 | — |
| LMArena German | 1391 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1331 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1321 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1392 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1389 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 4: 77.1 (#28)
- DeepSeek LLM 67B: 55.4 (#277)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | DeepSeek LLM 67B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1406 | 1079 |
| IFEval | 91.8% | — |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 4: 39.6 (#172)
- DeepSeek LLM 67B: 33.1 (#265)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | DeepSeek LLM 67B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1422 | 1092 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 61.1% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 4: 61.2 (#89)
- DeepSeek LLM 67B: 31.6 (#282)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4 | DeepSeek LLM 67B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1377 | 1105 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1387 | 1067 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1396 | 1082 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.6% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1580 | — |
| WildBench | 85.2% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 4 better than DeepSeek LLM 67B?

Claude Opus 4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.1 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Claude Opus 4 or DeepSeek LLM 67B better for coding?

Claude Opus 4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.2 versus 31.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4 and DeepSeek LLM 67B share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4 has 56 scored results on Noometry and DeepSeek LLM 67B has 15.