Claude Opus 4.6 vs DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Max
Claude Opus 4.6 leads the LLM Stats Score 44.5 to 38.9. DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Max is 88.9x cheaper per token.
Anthropic · DeepSeek · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Claude Opus 4.6 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 44.5 to 38.9, ranking #43 overall.
In the 7 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Opus 4.6 wins 6; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Max is roughly 88.9x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Max also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose Claude Opus 4.6
- overall performance matters — it scores 44.5 and ranks #43 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning and agents — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 6 of 7 exact shared results
Choose DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Max
- cost matters — it's about 88.9x cheaper per token
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Apr 2026
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
27 reported for Claude Opus 4.6 · 19 for DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Max
Claude Opus 4.6 outperforms in 6 benchmarks (BrowseComp, GPQA, Humanity's Last Exam, SWE-bench Multilingual, SWE-Bench Verified, Terminal-Bench 2.0), while DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Max is better at 1 benchmark (MCP Atlas).
Claude Opus 4.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Claude Opus 4.6 ($5.00/1M tokens) is 55.6x more expensive than DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Max ($0.09/1M tokens).
For output processing, Claude Opus 4.6 ($25.00/1M tokens) is 138.9x more expensive than DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Max ($0.18/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Claude Opus 4.6 is more expensive than DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Max.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Max accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Claude Opus 4.6's 1,000,000 tokens. DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Max can generate longer responses up to 1,048,576 tokens, while Claude Opus 4.6 is limited to 128,000 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Claude Opus 4.6 supports multimodal inputs, whereas DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Max 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
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Max
License
Usage and distribution terms
Claude Opus 4.6 is licensed under a proprietary license, while DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Max uses MIT.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Proprietary
Closed source
MIT
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Claude Opus 4.6 was released on 2026-02-05, while DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Max was released on 2026-04-23.
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Max is 3 months newer than Claude Opus 4.6.
Feb 5, 2026
8 months ago
Apr 23, 2026
5 months ago
2mo newerKnowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
Claude Opus 4.6 is available from Anthropic. DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Max is available from DeepInfra, DeepSeek.
Claude Opus 4.6
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Max
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Claude Opus 4.6 and DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Max side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Claude Opus 4.6 vs DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Max.