Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Claude Opus 4.1 vs DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus

Claude Opus 4.1 leads DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 22.8 to 14.8, and DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus costs 73.9x less per output token ($1.0142 vs $75.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 30 benchmarks have a result for both.

Claude Opus 4.1Anthropic
Coding
No data
Overall
50.2
Output $/M
$75.00
18
DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusDeepSeek
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.0142
12
vs boards won of 30 shared

Claude Opus 4.1 or DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Claude Opus 4.1 for a larger context window (200K against 164K tokens) and work measured by LMArena Text: science or LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare, where it leads.

Shared results
30
Claude Opus 4.1 only
43
DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus only
15
Like-for-like categories
7 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Claude Opus 4.1 not benchmarked, DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus not benchmarked.
Widest category
Intelligence, 8.0 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
Design Arena: SVG: Claude Opus 4.1 1152 against DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus 1065, 10.9 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Claude Opus 4.1 $75.00 against DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus $1.0142 per million output tokens, 73.9x apart.
Context window
Claude Opus 4.1 takes 200K tokens, DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus 164K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryClaude Opus 4.1BarsDeepSeek V3.1 TerminusTies
Coding20
Intelligence10
Reasoning20
Math10
Knowledge04
Web design34
General94
All shared boards1812
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index20
Coding benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusLeader
LMArena WebDev1390Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
AA Coding IndexNot measured43.5Only DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)66.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured79.8%Only DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
SciCodeNot measured38.0%Only DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured31.8%Only DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Terminal-Bench38.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
WeirdML45.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Cybench42.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
ALE-BenchNot measured745.2Only DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LMArena Text: coding14791425Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: software and IT14561426Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena WebDev: HTML1399Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
SciCode4.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusLeader
AA Intelligence Index22.814.8Claude Opus 4.1
Epoch Capabilities Index144.1Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusLeader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured6.8Only DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured37.1%Only DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
METR time horizons66.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
GDPval43.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
DeepResearch Bench48.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
Reasoning benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusLeader
GPQA Diamond76.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)77.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured79.2%Only DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured16.4%Only DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)77.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
SimpleBench60.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Mystery game puzzles21.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
EBR-bench7.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
VPCT35.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts14421426Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: expert1438Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English14511432Claude Opus 4.1
Kagi LLM BenchmarkNot measured57.4%Only DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Math benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusLeader
AIME78.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)95.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)94.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
AA Math IndexNot measured89.7Only DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured89.7%Only DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
OTIS Mock AIME68.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 312.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
FrontierMath, tier 42.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: math14311402Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: mathematical work1434Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Knowledge benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusLeader
MMLU Pro87.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)83.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)73.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)61.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)93.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)47.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured85.1%Only DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
LMArena Text: science14221451DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare14161468DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: legal and government14211457DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: business and finance14061414DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
FACTS Benchmark Suite40.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index34
Web design benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusLeader
Design Arena: websites11761187DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
Design Arena: UI components11621182DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
Design Arena: game dev11711131Claude Opus 4.1
Design Arena: data viz11661168DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
Design Arena: 3D11521141Claude Opus 4.1
Design Arena: all code categories11701175DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
Design Arena: SVG11521065Claude Opus 4.1
Design Arena: ASCII art1167Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index94
General benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusLeader
SAGE (Vals AI)31.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)73.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
IFBenchNot measured57.0%Only DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured69.3%Only DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus measured
DTBench80.0%81.3%DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMCA37.1%28.6%Claude Opus 4.1
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)84.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text14191419Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: instruction following14351404Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: creative writing14121403Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: English14331429Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: non-English14051408DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: Chinese1427Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: German1413Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1377Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1381Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: French1433Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1448Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: Russian14221435DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: Polish14131427DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
LMArena Text: multi-turn14441411Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: longer queries14551422Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: writing and language14181409Claude Opus 4.1
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13981391Claude Opus 4.1
Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1DeepSeek V3.1 TerminusLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Claude Opus 4.1$0.052Fits in one request
DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus$0.0008Fits in one request

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.1$0.975Fits in one request
DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus$0.018Fits in one request

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.1$3.75Exceeds the context window
DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus$0.071Exceeds the context window

DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Claude Opus 4.1 and DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
SpecificationAnthropic Claude Opus 4.1DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus
MakerAnthropicDeepSeek
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedAugust 5, 2025September 22, 2025
Context window200K164K
Input $/Mtok$15.00$0.3063
Output $/Mtok$75.00$1.0142
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it10
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Claude Opus 4.1 for a larger context window (200K against 164K tokens) and work measured by LMArena Text: science or LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus?

Claude Opus 4.1 costs $15.00 per million input tokens and $75.00 per million output tokens; DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus costs $0.3063 and $1.0142. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Claude Opus 4.1 or DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus?

Claude Opus 4.1, with 200K tokens against 164K.

How many benchmarks is the Claude Opus 4.1 vs DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus comparison based on?

30 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Claude Opus 4.1's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next