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 | 9/100 | 81/100 | 50/100 | 50/100 — Tool calling supported; no comparable benchmark |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 25/100 | 73/100 | 59/100 | 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
$0.30/ 1M
Output
$20/ 1M
$1.20/ 1M
Cached input
$0.20/ 1M
$0.006/ 1M
MomentumLast 2 mo
Unique users
No usage
2.5M
Completed sessions
No usage
30,048,329
Token share
No usage
11.6%
Tokens
No usage
118T-54%
No trend data
AUG 23OCT 17
RetentionWeek 1
Returning users
Pending
69.3%272K user-weeks
Related comparisons. Other model pairs to check.
Nearby alternativeClaude Opus 5.5 vs Jamba MiniClaude Opus 5.5·Jamba MiniNearby alternativeDeepSeek V4 Flash vs Jamba MiniDeepSeek V4 Flash·Jamba MiniRelated comparisonClaude Opus 5.5 vs Jamba LargeClaude Opus 5.5·Jamba LargeRelated comparisonDeepSeek V4 Flash vs Jamba LargeDeepSeek V4 Flash·Jamba Large