Objective comparison based on public benchmarks updated weekly: Intelligence Index, GPQA Diamond, Chatbot Arena ELO, pricing and speed.
Overall winner (2026)
Claude Opus 4.7
5 of 8 criteria won
Anthropic
ELO Arena
1503
Intelligence Index
53.5
Coding Index
73.6
5 criteria won
View full profile →DeepSeek
ELO Arena
1425
Intelligence Index
24.7
Coding Index
75.7
3 criteria won
View full profile →| Critério | Claude Opus 4.7 | DeepSeek V3.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Chatbot Arena ELO | 1503 ✓ | 1425 |
| Intelligence Index (AA) | 53.5 ✓ | 24.7 |
| Coding Index (AA) | 73.6 | 75.7 ✓ |
| GPQA Diamond | 91.0% ✓ | 75.0% |
| Input price ($/1M tok) | $5.00 | $0.28 ✓ |
| Output price ($/1M tok) | $25.00 | $0.42 ✓ |
| Context window | 1.0M tokens ✓ | 164K tokens |
| Speed (tokens/s) | 42 tok/s ✓ | — |
✓ = winner in this criterion • Source: Artificial Analysis, LMArena, official APIs • Updated weekly
Choosing between Claude Opus 4.7 and DeepSeek V3.2 depends on your use case, budget and technical requirements. Below, a practical guide based on benchmark data and each model's specifications.
Anthropic · Multimodal
DeepSeek · Text · Open Source
Claude Opus 4.7 wins in 5 of 8 criteria analyzed. Check the full table to choose based on your use case.
Data is aggregated from Artificial Analysis (Intelligence Index, Coding Index) and Chatbot Arena/LMArena (ELO). Pricing and specs come from official APIs. Updated weekly.
The Intelligence Index is an aggregate score from Artificial Analysis that combines multiple academic benchmarks (MMLU, GPQA, LiveBench, etc.) into a single rating. The higher the score, the more capable the model is at reasoning tasks.
No. DeepSeek V3.2 is cheaper: $0.28/1M input tokens vs $5/1M tokens for Claude Opus 4.7 — a 1686% difference. For high-volume projects, DeepSeek V3.2 can reduce costs substantially.
Claude Opus 4.7 has the larger context window: 1.0M tokens vs 164K tokens. For long document analysis, extensive transcripts or full codebases, the larger context window is a decisive criterion.