Compare AI models: Claude Opus 5.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash
- Claude Opus 5.5AnthropicHollow points use fallbacks · hover for details
- DeepSeek V4 FlashDeepSeek
ReasoningCodingCost efficiencyContext windowMultimodalTool use
| Model | Reasoning | Coding | Cost efficiency | Context window | Multimodal | Tool use |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 5.5 | 100/100 | 75/100 | 8/100 | 81/100 | 50/100 | 50/100 — Tool calling supported; no comparable benchmark |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 26/100 | 73/100 | 54/100 | 81/100 | 0/100 | 0/100 |
Overview
Author
Context length
1M
1M
Reasoning
True
True
Input modalities
Text, Image, Pdf
Text
Output modalities
Text
Text
Providers
Pricing
Input
$4.00/ 1M
$0.44/ 1M
Output
$20/ 1M
$1.32/ 1M
Cached input
Unknown
Unknown
MomentumLast 2 mo
Unique users
1
952K
Completed sessions
2
13,931,186
Token share
0%
3.17%
Tokens
20M+100%
44T-85%
SEP 15NOV 9
SEP 15NOV 9
RetentionWeek 1
Returning users
Pending
57.9%59K user-weeks
Related comparisons. Other model pairs to check.
Nearby alternativeClaude Opus 5.5 vs Dracarys Llama 3.1 70B InstructClaude Opus 5.5·Dracarys Llama 3.1 70B InstructNearby alternativeDeepSeek V4 Flash vs Dracarys Llama 3.1 70B InstructDeepSeek V4 Flash·Dracarys Llama 3.1 70B InstructRelated comparisonClaude Opus 5.5 vs Jamba MiniClaude Opus 5.5·Jamba MiniRelated comparisonDeepSeek V4 Flash vs Jamba MiniDeepSeek V4 Flash·Jamba Mini