← All Comparisons

DeepSeek V3 vs Claude Opus 4.6

A detailed comparison of DeepSeek V3 (DeepSeek) and Claude Opus 4.6 (Anthropic) across pricing, performance, and features.

Pricing Comparison

MetricDeepSeek V3Claude Opus 4.6Difference
Input / 1M tokens$0.14$5.00+3471%
Output / 1M tokens$0.28$25.00+8829%
Context window164K200K
Max output16.384K32K

Benchmark Comparison

BenchmarkDeepSeek V3Claude Opus 4.6
MMLU-Pro78%89.5%
HumanEval89%95%
GPQA75.5%

Capabilities

CapabilityDeepSeek V3Claude Opus 4.6
code
reasoning
text
tool-use
vision

DeepSeek V3 Strengths

  • Cheapest capable model available
  • Strong coding performance
  • Open-source

DeepSeek V3 Weaknesses

  • No vision support
  • Smaller context than competitors
  • China-based — availability concerns

Claude Opus 4.6 Strengths

  • Best-in-class agentic tool use and coding
  • 1M context available in beta (Tier 4)
  • Strong at following complex multi-step instructions

Claude Opus 4.6 Weaknesses

  • Premium pricing ($10/$37.50 at 1M context)
  • 1M context beta is Tier 4 only

Quick Verdict

Best value: DeepSeek V3 is the more affordable option at $0.14/$0.28 per 1M tokens.

Higher benchmarks: Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on average across available benchmarks (86.7% avg).

Larger context: Claude Opus 4.6 supports 200K tokens.

Choose DeepSeek V3 if cost matters most. Choose Claude Opus 4.6 if you need the best possible quality for complex tasks.

More Comparisons