Claude Opus 4.8 vs DeepSeek-V3.2
Claude Opus 4.8 (Anthropic) and DeepSeek-V3.2 (DeepSeek) compared on benchmarks, pricing, context window, and use-case rankings.
- Claude Opus 4.8 leads on overall intelligence (ECI 157 vs 146).
- DeepSeek-V3.2 is cheaper on input tokens — $0.23 vs $5.00 per 1M.
- Claude Opus 4.8 has a larger context window (1M vs 131K tokens).
- Claude Opus 4.8 ranks higher for coding (96th vs 27th percentile).
Use-case scores are 0–100 percentile composites across each area’s benchmarks, ranked against every model from the past year. Highlighted cells lead each row. Open a model for the full picture.
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than DeepSeek-V3.2?
On Epoch AI's Capabilities Index, Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher (157) than DeepSeek-V3.2 (146). The right pick depends on your task — compare their coding, math, and reasoning scores in the table above.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.8 or DeepSeek-V3.2?
DeepSeek-V3.2 is cheaper on input tokens at $0.23 per million, versus $5.00 (representative OpenRouter pricing).
Which has a larger context window, Claude Opus 4.8 or DeepSeek-V3.2?
Claude Opus 4.8 supports up to 1M tokens, compared with 131K for the other.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.8 or DeepSeek-V3.2?
Across coding benchmarks like SWE-bench Verified and Terminal-Bench, Claude Opus 4.8 ranks higher — 96th vs 27th percentile among the models tracked on Model Beat.
Want a different match-up? Open the compare tool to add or swap models.
More comparisons
Benchmarks & model data from Epoch AI (CC BY); pricing & specs from OpenRouter. ECI = Epoch Capabilities Index.