Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro Base

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

No sourced benchmark result is currently shared by both models. This page therefore compares only the available metadata, pricing, and runtime rows; it does not name a quality winner.
78.34/100
No comparison
N/A
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #5 (Supported); DeepSeek V4 Pro Base unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.8 and DeepSeek V4 Pro Base share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 53 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 24 to DeepSeek V4 Pro Base.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
0
Claude Opus 4.8 only
53
DeepSeek V4 Pro Base only
24
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Claude Opus 4.8 makes more sense if you want the stronger reasoning-first profile; DeepSeek V4 Pro Base is the better fit if knowledge is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Claude Opus 4.8 and DeepSeek V4 Pro Base finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.

Claude Opus 4.8 is the reasoning model in the pair, while DeepSeek V4 Pro Base is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Opus 4.8DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 outputDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.8Not availableDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.8Not availableDeepSeek V4 Pro BaseNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.81MDeepSeek V4 Pro Base1MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 84.3%—Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource 93.1%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 83.4%—Not comparable
Finance Agent v2Source 53.9%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1594—Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 82.2%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 59.9%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 72.97%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 47.2%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 94.4%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 54.7%—Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 21.1%—Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 20.6%—Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource 1347—Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 48.5%—Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 44.0%—Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 91.1%—Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 27.6%—Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource 58.3%—Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source 84.6%—Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 88.6%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 69.2%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 84.4%—Not comparable
SWE MultimodalSource 38.4%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%—Not comparable
cursorBench31Source 58.4%—Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 62.3%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 74.3%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 53.5%—Not comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 46.5%—Not comparable
BigCodeBenchSource —59.2%Not comparable
HumanEvalSource —76.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
AA-LCRSource 67.7%—Not comparable
CritPtSource 20.9%—Not comparable
BBHSource —87.5%Not comparable
DROPSource —88.7%Not comparable
HellaSwagSource —88.0%Not comparable
WinoGrandeSource —81.5%Not comparable
CLUEWSCSource —85.2%Not comparable
LongBench v2Source —51.5%Not comparable
KnowledgeDeepSeek V4 Pro Base wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
GPQASource 93.6%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 93.6%—Not comparable
HLESource 57.9%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 49.8%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 55.7%—Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.0%—Not comparable
AA-HLESource 45.7%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 27.4%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 46.6%—Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 35.9%—Not comparable
AGIEvalSource —83.1%Not comparable
MMLUSource —90.1%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —90.8%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —73.5%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —90.3%Not comparable
C-EvalSource —93.1%Not comparable
CMMLUSource —90.8%Not comparable
MultiLoKoSource —51.1%Not comparable
SimpleQASource —55.2%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —53.9%Not comparable
FACTS ParametricSource —62.6%Not comparable
TriviaQASource —85.6%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
USAMO 2026Source 96.7%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 47.241%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 31.250%—Not comparable
GSM8KSource —92.6%Not comparable
MATHSource —64.5%Not comparable
CMathSource —90.9%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
INCLUDESource 87.6%—Not comparable
MGSMSource —84.4%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
OfficeQA ProSource 66.2%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 87.9%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 89.9%—Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 80.5%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1270—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8DeepSeek V4 Pro BaseResult
AA-IFBenchSource 62.2%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or DeepSeek V4 Pro Base?

Claude Opus 4.8 and DeepSeek V4 Pro Base are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or DeepSeek V4 Pro Base?

DeepSeek V4 Pro Base has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 66.4 versus 62.7. Claude Opus 4.8 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.