Model comparison
Claude Opus 5.5 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
Anthropic against DeepSeek, compared on context, price, and verified benchmark results.
Catalog record checked September 26, 2026Individual provider fields may changeEvidence confidence: High — see receipts below
Anthropic
Claude Opus 5.5
Frontier
DeepSeek
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
Balanced · Open weights
| Specification | Claude Opus 5.5 | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | ||
| Provider | Anthropic | DeepSeek |
| Tier | ||
| Tier | Frontier | Balanced |
| Context window | ||
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | ||
| Max output | 128K | Winner: 384K |
| Input / 1M tokens | ||
| Input / 1M tokens | $4 | Winner: $0.30 |
| Output / 1M tokens | ||
| Output / 1M tokens | $20 | Winner: $1.20 |
| Weights | ||
| Weights | Closed | Open |
| Parameters | ||
| Parameters | Not disclosedUnverified | 552B MoE (causal encoder-decoder; 8B active for input, 16B for output) |
| Reasoning levels | ||
| Reasoning levels | adaptive | low, high, max |
| Modalities | ||
| Modalities | text, image | text, image |
| License | ||
| License | Not disclosedUnverified | MIT |
| API model id | ||
| API model id | claude-opus-5-5 | deepseek-flash |
| Released | ||
| Released | September 22, 2026 | September 10, 2026 |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index [max] (2026-09-26) | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index [max] (2026-09-26) | Winner: 57.6 | 39.5 |
| Humanity's Last Exam [max] (2026-09-26) | ||
| Humanity's Last Exam [max] (2026-09-26) | 61.4 | Not verifiedUnverified |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 [max] (2026-09-26) | ||
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 [max] (2026-09-26) | 59.6 | Not verifiedUnverified |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 [xhigh] (2026-09-22) | ||
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 [xhigh] (2026-09-22) | 66.4 | Not verifiedUnverified |
| DeepSWE 1.1 [max] (2026-09-10) | ||
| DeepSWE 1.1 [max] (2026-09-10) | Not verifiedUnverified | 74.2 |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 [max] (2026-09-10) | ||
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 [max] (2026-09-10) | Not verifiedUnverified | 90.6 |
| GPQA Diamond [max] (2026-09-10) | ||
| GPQA Diamond [max] (2026-09-10) | Not verifiedUnverified | 90.9 |
Prices are USD per million tokens at standard rates, excluding batch and caching discounts. Bold indicates the better figure where one is objectively better. Values we could not confirm from the provider are shown as “Not verified” rather than estimated.
Benchmark receipts
Where each score comes from, and how far it can be compared across models.
- 2026-09-26Artificial Analysis Terminal-Bench 4.0 (independent AA run, part of Intelligence Index v4.3.2)
Agentic terminal work: long multi-step tasks executed in a sandboxed shell environment.
Comparable with caveatNOT comparable with Terminal-Bench 2.x or 3.0 — 4.0 uses a new, non-overlapping task set. Within 4.0, scores from different harnesses (tbench.ai agent entries vs Artificial Analysis runs) are not interchangeable.
- 2026-09-26Artificial Analysis Humanity's Last Exam (independent, 2,158 text-only questions)
Frontier-knowledge ceiling: extremely hard multi-domain questions written to be near-impossible without deep expertise.
Comparable with caveatSubset/tool configurations (text-only vs with-tools) differ between vendors and materially change scores; must match configuration to compare.
- 2026-09-26Artificial Analysis
Composite index blending reasoning, knowledge, and coding evals into one 0–100 score.
Comparable with caveatOnly same-version scores are comparable. v4.3.2 was rebaselined (the top score fell from 66 on v4.1.1 to ~58), so v4.1.1 figures must not be compared with v4.3.2 figures — check measuredAt.
- 2026-09-22Anthropic — Claude Opus 5.5 announcement (vendor; conflicts with AA's independent 59.6 — harness difference preserved)
Agentic terminal work: long multi-step tasks executed in a sandboxed shell environment.
Comparable with caveatNOT comparable with Terminal-Bench 2.x or 3.0 — 4.0 uses a new, non-overlapping task set. Within 4.0, scores from different harnesses (tbench.ai agent entries vs Artificial Analysis runs) are not interchangeable.
- 2026-09-10DeepSeek V4.1-Flash release notes (vendor)
Agentic software engineering: pass@1 on real repo tasks with reported cost per completed task.
Directly comparable
Pricing tiers
Claude Opus 5.5: $4/$20 per MTok, no long-context surcharge. Cache reads $0.20; 5-minute cache writes $5, 1-hour writes $8. Batch $2/$10; Fast mode $8/$40. Batches API allows 300K output with the output-300k-2026-03-24 beta header. Knowledge cutoff Jun 2026; retirement not before 2027-09-22.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: Official peak rates $0.30/$1.20 per MTok; off-peak $0.15/$0.60 (50% of peak). Cache hit $0.006 peak / $0.003 off-peak. Peak hours are weekdays 01:00–04:00 and 06:00–10:00 UTC. Open weights (MIT). The legacy deepseek-v4-flash and deepseek-v4-flash-vision-exp ids temporarily route here.
Claude Opus 5.5
Claude Opus 5.5 is Anthropic's default model for agentic coding and knowledge work — Anthropic says it performs near Fable 5.1 on most work at about 40% lower running cost than Opus 5, and it leads the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v4.3.2.
Best for
- Complex agentic coding
- Enterprise knowledge work
- Default frontier model
Watch out
Breaking changes from Opus 5: adaptive thinking cannot be disabled (effort runs low to max, default medium) and forced tool use returns an error. Verbose at max effort, so cap output on cost-sensitive routes.
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is DeepSeek's new default — an open-weight (MIT) multimodal MoE that DeepSeek says beats V4-Pro on performance, cost and speed.
Best for
- Open-weight price-performance
- High-volume hosted agents
- Self-hosting with MIT weights
Watch out
Vendor benchmark claims are far ahead of its independent Artificial Analysis score (39.5 on v4.3.2); peak/off-peak billing means the hour you run matters.
When the cheaper one wins
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is cheaper on output at $1.20 per million tokens against $20 for Claude Opus 5.5 — about 17×. Use the cheaper tier for classification, extraction, summarisation, and any task where the expensive model’s extra score does not change the accepted output. The expensive one only pays if your hardest task actually fails on the cheap tier. These are standard-tier API rates, excluding batch and cache discounts.
Run the model pickerEvidence confidence: High
How strong and complete the evidence behind this comparison is — not a prediction of which model is better.
- Pricing verified on both sides — Input and output rates are verified for both models.
- 4/5 core specs verified on both sides — Not published for at least one side: parameter count.
- 1 shared named benchmark with differing scores — Measured on: Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index.
- Verified within the last 90 days — Newest catalog check was 2 days ago.
- Both models carry source citations — Each side has at least two catalog sources on record.
Source receipts
Each catalog figure was checked against the provider or an independent second source on the date shown.
- Claude Opus 5.5: Anthropic — Claude Opus 5.5 (accessed 2026-09-26)
- Claude Opus 5.5: Anthropic docs — Opus 5.5 overview (1M context, 128K output) (accessed 2026-09-26)
- Claude Opus 5.5: Anthropic pricing (claude-opus-5-5 $4/$20, cache reads $0.20) (accessed 2026-09-26)
- Claude Opus 5.5: Artificial Analysis — Intelligence Index v4.3.2 (Opus 5.5 #1) (accessed 2026-09-26)
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: DeepSeek — V4.1-Flash release (2026-09-10) (accessed 2026-09-26)
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: DeepSeek API pricing (deepseek-flash $0.30/$1.20 peak) (accessed 2026-09-26)
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash: Hugging Face — deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash (accessed 2026-09-26)
Related comparisons
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6 Luna
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6 Sol
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs Grok 4.7
Diving deeper on one model? Claude Opus 5.5 · DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
Common questions
Claude Opus 5.5 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
Answered from the verified figures on this page rather than general guidance.
Is Claude Opus 5.5 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash cheaper for input?
Is Claude Opus 5.5 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash cheaper for output?
Which has the larger context window, Claude Opus 5.5 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash?
Do Claude Opus 5.5 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash support the same reasoning levels?
Should I use Claude Opus 5.5 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash?
Can I self-host Claude Opus 5.5 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash?
Next step
Choosing between them
The verified figures that separate this pair, computed from the catalog rather than restated boilerplate.
- Input price: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash costs $0.30 per 1M tokens versus $4 for Claude Opus 5.5 — a 13.3x difference at the headline tier.
- Measured capability: Claude Opus 5.5 leads Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index 57.6 to 39.5 (measured 2026-09-26).
- Deployment: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash publishes weights you can self-host; the other is API-only.
- Positioning: Claude Opus 5.5 sits in the frontier tier, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash in the balanced tier — most production volume (classification, extraction, summarisation) does not need the pricier tier.
Choosing a harness rather than a model — Cursor, Copilot, Claude Code, Windsurf, or Lovable? Compare agentic harnesses · Latest releases.