Claude Opus 5 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash

At a Glance

Compare
Claude Opus 5Anthropic
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5#3 of 4694.1 score · 3/3 sources · completeUnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort
CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate#39 of 44$0.371 per LiveBench case#5 of 44$0.022 per LiveBench case
EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5#13 of 3857.6 score · 3/3 sources · completeUnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort
Pricing and Limits
Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$5.00Anthropic · Sep 3, 2026$0.15DeepSeek · Sep 10, 2026
Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$25.00Anthropic · Sep 3, 2026$0.60Deepinfra · Sep 22, 2026
Context windowMaximum documented tokens1,000K1,049K
Model facts checkedAug 28, 2026View model evidence →Sep 10, 2026View model evidence →

Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →

Available Benchmarks

All benchmark results →
BenchmarkClaude Opus 5DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
LMArena Agent Arenaagent-2026-09-15-d25aabda0010 · outcome_score · leader10.16100% of row best · score · Claude Opus 5 (Max); 95% CI [8.61078356, 11.71492901]; sessions 19934; observations 2534849; rank 44.8895% of row best · score · Deepseek V4.1 Flash (Max); 95% CI [3.54852933, 6.21109128]; sessions 20080; observations 2295632; rank 12
LiveBench2026-06-25 · overall · leader83.44100% of row best · percent · claude-opus-5-max-effort · 14,826 output tokens / case83.20100% of row best · percent · deepseek-v4.1-flash-max · 36,355 output tokens / case
ToneBench2026-09-11-10-task-4ef099199c9c · overall_score · unverified88.76100% of row best · points · Claude Opus 5 (max effort) · 9,446 output tokens / case88.0399% of row best · points · DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max) · 18,199 output tokens / case
Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above2 benchmark winsOverall lead0 benchmark wins

Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.

Quality Versus Estimated Output Cost

Full ranking →
Efficiency FrontierLiveBench overall · output estimate
Upper-left is better
xAIZ.aiMiniMaxDeepSeekOpenAIQwenGoogle DeepMindMoonshot AIAnthropic
LiveBench quality versus score-adjusted output costEach dot is a reviewed major-model configuration and is colored by developer. Higher means a better LiveBench overall score. Farther left means lower estimated output cost after adjusting by the score. A dotted line connects the non-dominated frontier observations. When models are selected, their sourced families remain prominent, unrelated observations retain their developer colors at lower opacity, and an orange ring identifies each selected model.$0.0050$0.010$0.050$0.100$0.500$1.006873798489Grok Build 0.1GLM 5.3 FlashDeepSeek V4.1 Flash (max)GPT-5.6 Sol (max)GPT-6 Astra (max)Claude Fable 5.1Score-adjusted output cost per LiveBench case (log) →LiveBench overall →
The dotted frontier connects measured, non-dominated major-model observations. With a selection, sourced families stay prominent, unrelated observations retain their developer colors at lower opacity, and orange rings mark the selected model or models. Family lines connect models only when their sourced family and generation match. Cost is estimated from published output tokens and the lowest current USD output rate; it excludes input, caching, batch discounts, and provider-specific benchmark execution details.

Side-by-Side Facts

FieldClaude Opus 5DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
DeveloperAnthropicDeepSeek
FamilyClaude 5Deepseek V4 1
ModelClaude Opus 5DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
VersionClaude Opus 5DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
Lifecycleactiveactive
Released2026-07-242026-09-10
Knowledge cutoffUnknownUnknown
Input modalitiesText, ImageText, Image
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window1,000K1,049K
Total parametersUnknown763.2B
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseUnknownmit
Open weightsNoYes
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableNoYes
Provider accessAnthropic (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard), Openrouter (Standard)DeepSeek (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard), Together Ai (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoning, toolsagents, chat, fim, generation, reasoning, responses, structured_outputs, tools, vision
Architecture designUnknownCausal Encoder-Decoder (20 encoder + 20 decoder layers)
Backbone parametersUnknown552000000000 parameters
Active parameters during decodeUnknown16000000000 parameters
Active parameters during prefillUnknown8000000000 parameters
Pre-training corpusUnknown45000000000000 tokens
Reasoning effort rangeUnknown1–100
Routed experts per MoE layerUnknown384 experts
Routed experts per tokenUnknown6 experts
Transformer layersUnknown40 layers

Claude Opus 5 Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningtools
Serving providers3
Canonical IDanthropic/claude-opus-5

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash Capabilities

agentschatfimgenerationreasoningresponsesstructured outputstoolsvision
Serving providers3
Canonical IDdeepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Claude Opus 5 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash FAQs

Is Claude Opus 5 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Opus 5 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash?+

Claude Opus 5 is $5.00 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is $0.15 per million tokens, so DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper on this metric. Claude Opus 5 is $25.00 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is $0.60 per million tokens, so DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, Claude Opus 5 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash?+

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has the larger sourced context window. Claude Opus 5 supports 1,000K and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash supports 1,049K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Opus 5 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash?+

Claude Opus 5 leads the current overall benchmark count. The result uses 2 protocol-matched benchmarks from 2 publishers; it is not a universal quality score.

Can Claude Opus 5 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash be self-hosted?+

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Claude Opus 5 is not marked open weight; DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is open weight.

Can Claude Opus 5 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash understand images?+

Claude Opus 5 is documented with image input; DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Claude Opus 5 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash?+

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has the larger sourced maximum output: Claude Opus 5 supports 128K and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash supports 393K output tokens.

Do Claude Opus 5 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash support reasoning and tool use?+

Claude Opus 5: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Claude Opus 5 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash?+

Claude Opus 5 has 3 sourced provider routes; DeepSeek V4.1 Flash has 3, a tie.

Which offers better value, Claude Opus 5 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash?+

There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.

Send Feedback