Claude Opus 4.6 vs DeepSeek V3 0324
Direct comparison between anthropic and deepseek for chat models. Specs, prices, strengths, weaknesses — decide on facts.
At a glance
- · Cheaper: DeepSeek V3 0324
- · Longer context window: Claude Opus 4.6 at 200,000 tokens
- · Claude Opus 4.6: Highest hit rate on SWE-bench among closed-source models
- · DeepSeek V3 0324: One of the cheapest models with serious coding quality
Spec comparison
| Spec | Claude Opus 4.6 | DeepSeek V3 0324 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | anthropic | deepseek |
| Input per 1M tokens | $5.00 / 1M | $0.27 / 1M |
| Output per 1M tokens | $25.00 / 1M | $1.12 / 1M |
| Context window | 200,000 tok | 128,000 tok |
| Max output | 32,000 tok | 8,192 tok |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2025-07 | — |
| Vision | ||
| Tool calling | ||
| JSON mode | ||
| Structured output | ||
| Reasoning |
Claude Opus 4.6 — strengths
- +Highest hit rate on SWE-bench among closed-source models
- +Excellent at multi-day agentic tasks without drift
- +Top performance on multi-repo code analysis
DeepSeek V3 0324 — strengths
- +One of the cheapest models with serious coding quality
- +MoE architecture — low active parameters per token
- +Solid on math, comparable to western mid-tier models
Claude Opus 4.6 — weaknesses
- −Substantially pricier per token than Sonnet — rarely worth the markup
- −Higher latency, especially with extended thinking enabled
DeepSeek V3 0324 — weaknesses
- −Compliance concerns for some EU/US enterprise contexts
- −Knowledge cutoff stronger on Chinese sources than western ones