Compare AI models: Claude Opus 5.5 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash
- Claude Opus 5.5AnthropicHollow points use fallbacks · hover for details
- DeepSeek V4.1 FlashDeepSeek
ReasoningCodingCost efficiencyContext windowMultimodalTool use
| Model | Reasoning | Coding | Cost efficiency | Context window | Multimodal | Tool use |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 5.5 | 100/100 | 75/100 | 9/100 | 82/100 | 50/100 | 50/100 — Tool calling supported; no comparable benchmark |
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | 100/100 | 100/100 | 59/100 | 82/100 | 33/100 | 92/100 |
Overview
Author
Context length
1M
1M
Reasoning
True
True
Input modalities
Text, Image, Pdf
Text, Image
Output modalities
Text
Text
Providers
Pricing
Input
$4.00/ 1M
$0.30/ 1M
Output
$20/ 1M
$1.20/ 1M
Cached input
$0.20/ 1M
$0.006/ 1M
MomentumLast 2 mo
Unique users
No usage
2.1M
Completed sessions
No usage
41,054,497
Token share
No usage
22.3%
Tokens
No usage
222T+100%
No trend data
AUG 20OCT 14
RetentionWeek 1
Returning users
Pending
64.2%249K user-weeks
Related comparisons. Other model pairs to check.
Nearby alternativeClaude Opus 5.5 vs Jamba MiniClaude Opus 5.5·Jamba MiniNearby alternativeDeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Jamba MiniDeepSeek V4.1 Flash·Jamba MiniRelated comparisonClaude Opus 5.5 vs Jamba LargeClaude Opus 5.5·Jamba LargeRelated comparisonDeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Jamba LargeDeepSeek V4.1 Flash·Jamba Large