The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Opus 4.6 vs DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 44.5. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is 19.0x cheaper per token.

Anthropic · DeepSeek · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 44.5, ranking #15 overall.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Opus 4.6 wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is roughly 19.0x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 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

  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results

Choose DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

  • overall performance matters — it scores 51.0 and ranks #15 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes coding and agents — it leads those capability indexes
  • cost matters — it's about 19.0x 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 Oct 2026
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Opus 4.6
Anthropic
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
DeepSeek
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
44.5
#46
51.0
#15
Reasoning
45.3
#38
48.6
#18
Coding
31.5
#53
39.1
#15
Agents
27.4
#59
38.6
#9
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 1
0 of 1
Input price
$5.00 / M
$0.30 / M
Output price
$25.00 / M
$1.20 / M
Context window
1,000,000
1,048,576

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

4 shared
Index
Claude Opus 4.6
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Math
40.3#13
31.8#67
Vision
27.3#49
32.2#26
Tool use
23.7#43
30.9#7
Multimodal
22.9#71
35.0#14
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

27 reported for Claude Opus 4.6 · 11 for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

1 shared

Claude Opus 4.6 outperforms in 1 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam), while DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is better at 0 benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Mon Oct 19 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 costs less

For input processing, Claude Opus 4.6 ($5.00/1M tokens) is 16.7x more expensive than DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 ($0.30/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Opus 4.6 ($25.00/1M tokens) is 20.8x more expensive than DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 ($1.20/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Opus 4.6 is more expensive than DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Mon Oct 19 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.6
Input tokens$5.00
Output tokens$25.00
Best providerAnthropic
DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Input tokens$0.30
Output tokens$1.20
Best providerDeepSeek
Notice missing or incorrect data?

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Claude Opus 4.6's 1,000,000 tokens. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 can generate longer responses up to 393,216 tokens, while Claude Opus 4.6 is limited to 128,000 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.6
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output393,216 tokens
Mon Oct 19 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Both Claude Opus 4.6 and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Claude Opus 4.6

Text
Images
Audio
Video

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Opus 4.6 is licensed under a proprietary license, while DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 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-V4.1-Flash-1017

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Opus 4.6 was released on 2026-02-05, while DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 was released on 2026-10-17.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is 8 months newer than Claude Opus 4.6.

Claude Opus 4.6

Feb 5, 2026

8 months ago

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

Oct 17, 2026

0 days ago

8mo newer

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-V4.1-Flash-1017 is available from DeepSeek.

Claude Opus 4.6

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $5.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $25.00/1M

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

deepseek logo
DeepSeek
Input Price:Input: $0.30/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Opus 4.6 and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Opus 4.6
✓ Preferred
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Opus 4.6 vs DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017.

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 44.5. Claude Opus 4.6 is made by Anthropic and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is made by DeepSeek. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Claude Opus 4.6 compare to DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 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%, Tau2 Retail: 91.9%. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 scores BabyVision: 92.5%, Chartography: 83.0%, DeepSWE 1.1: 77.0%, NL2Repo: 68.2%, AutomationBench: 60.5%.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 cheaper than DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is 16.7x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Opus 4.6 costs $5.00/M input and $25.00/M output via anthropic. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 costs $0.30/M input and $1.20/M output via deepseek.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Opus 4.6 and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017?

Claude Opus 4.6 supports 1.0M tokens and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 supports 1.0M 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-V4.1-Flash-1017?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (44.5 vs 51.0), context window (1.0M vs 1.0M), input pricing ($5.00 vs $0.30/M), licensing (Proprietary vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Opus 4.6 and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017?

Claude Opus 4.6 is developed by Anthropic and DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is developed by DeepSeek.

Related comparisons