Model Comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)

Claude Opus 4.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) is 31.7x cheaper per token.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

7 benchmarks

Claude Opus 4.6 outperforms in 7 benchmarks (AIME 2025, BrowseComp, GPQA, Humanity's Last Exam, SWE-bench Multilingual, SWE-Bench Verified, Terminal-Bench 2.0), while DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) is better at 0 benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Wed May 06 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) costs less

For input processing, Claude Opus 4.6 ($5.00/1M tokens) is 17.9x more expensive than DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) ($0.28/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Opus 4.6 ($25.00/1M tokens) is 59.5x more expensive than DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) ($0.42/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Opus 4.6 is more expensive than DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking).*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers

Wed May 06 2026 • llm-stats.com

Claude Opus 4.6

Input tokens$5.00

Output tokens$25.00

Best providerAnthropic

DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)

Input tokens$0.28

Output tokens$0.42

Best providerDeepSeek

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Claude Opus 4.6 accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)'s 131,072 tokens. Claude Opus 4.6 can generate longer responses up to 128,000 tokens, while DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) is limited to 65,536 tokens.

Claude Opus 4.6

Input1,000,000 tokens

Output128,000 tokens

DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)

Input131,072 tokens

Output65,536 tokens

Wed May 06 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Claude Opus 4.6 supports multimodal inputs, whereas DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) does not.

Claude Opus 4.6 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude Opus 4.6

Text

Images

Audio

Video

DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)

Text

Images

Audio

Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Opus 4.6 is licensed under a proprietary license, while DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) uses MIT.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Claude Opus 4.6

Proprietary

Closed source

DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Opus 4.6 was released on 2026-02-05, while DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) was released on 2025-12-01.

Claude Opus 4.6 is 2 months newer than DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking).

Claude Opus 4.6

Feb 5, 2026

3 months ago

2mo newer

DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)

Dec 1, 2025

5 months ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

Claude Opus 4.6 is available from Anthropic. DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) is available from DeepSeek.

Claude Opus 4.6

Anthropic

Input Price:Input: $5.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $25.00/1M

DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)

DeepSeek

Input Price:Input: $0.28/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.42/1M

* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Claude Opus 4.6

View details

Anthropic

Larger context window (1,000,000 tokens)

Supports multimodal inputs

Higher AIME 2025 score (99.8% vs 93.1%)

Higher BrowseComp score (84.0% vs 51.4%)

Higher GPQA score (91.3% vs 82.4%)

Higher Humanity's Last Exam score (53.1% vs 25.1%)

Higher SWE-bench Multilingual score (77.8% vs 70.2%)

Higher SWE-Bench Verified score (80.8% vs 73.1%)

Higher Terminal-Bench 2.0 score (65.4% vs 46.4%)

DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)

View details

DeepSeek

Less expensive input tokens

Less expensive output tokens

Has open weights

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature	Claude Opus 4.6	DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Opus 4.6 vs DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking).

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)?

Claude Opus 4.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Claude Opus 4.6 is made by Anthropic and DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) is made by DeepSeek. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.

How does Claude Opus 4.6 compare to DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) in benchmarks?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores Vending-Bench 2: 100.0%, AIME 2025: 99.8%, Tau2 Telecom: 99.3%, Graphwalks parents >128k: 95.4%, MRCR v2 (8-needle): 93.0%. DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) scores AIME 2025: 93.1%, HMMT 2025: 90.2%, MMLU-Pro: 85.0%, LiveCodeBench: 83.3%, GPQA: 82.4%.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 cheaper than DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)?

DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) is 17.9x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Opus 4.6 costs $5.00/M input and $25.00/M output via anthropic. DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) costs $0.28/M input and $0.42/M output via deepseek.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Opus 4.6 and DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)?

Claude Opus 4.6 supports 1.0M tokens and DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) supports 131K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude Opus 4.6 and DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)?

Key differences include context window (1.0M vs 131K), input pricing ($5.00 vs $0.28/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Opus 4.6 and DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking)?

Claude Opus 4.6 is developed by Anthropic and DeepSeek-V3.2 (Thinking) is developed by DeepSeek.