Claude Opus 4.6
VS
DeepSeek V3.2
Claude Opus 4.6 vs DeepSeek V3.2: which wins at real work?
22 task areas · same graded test runs · rank comparison only, so 0–100 and Elo collections never mix raw scores.
Claude Opus 4.6 wins 16 of 22 task areas we tested; DeepSeek V3.2 takes 6. DeepSeek V3.2 costs 52.4× less per token ($0.572 vs $30 per 1M).
DeepSeek V3.2 costs 52.4× less per token ($0.572 vs $30 per 1M).
Task by task
| Task area | Claude Opus 4.6 | DeepSeek V3.2 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI Strategy |
#5
/ 126
Strong
|
#102
/ 126
Usable
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Sales |
#4
/ 110
Strong
|
#91
/ 110
Usable
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Translation & Localization |
#2
/ 110
Excellent
|
#89
/ 110
Strong
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Coding |
#18
/ 115
Excellent
|
#100
/ 115
Usable
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Legal & HR |
#8
/ 110
Excellent
|
#90
/ 110
Strong
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Content & Brand |
#14
/ 124
Strong
|
#95
/ 124
Usable
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Creative & Comedy | #10 / 110 | #87 / 110 | Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Chef / Home Cooking |
#12
/ 126
Strong
|
#78
/ 126
Usable
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Data & Analytics |
#10
/ 110
Excellent
|
#69
/ 110
Excellent
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Executive Assistant |
#18
/ 112
Strong
|
#76
/ 112
Usable
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Investor & Pitch |
#8
/ 66
Strong
|
#46
/ 66
Usable
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Training & Education |
#1
/ 110
Excellent
|
#38
/ 110
Excellent
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Structured Output |
#98
/ 113
Strong
|
#67
/ 113
Strong
|
DeepSeek V3.2 |
| Presentations & Decks |
#54
/ 110
Excellent
|
#81
/ 110
Strong
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Frontend & Landing Pages |
#51
/ 109
Needs editing
|
#25
/ 109
Needs editing
|
DeepSeek V3.2 |
| Landing Pages |
#23
/ 72
Strong
|
#48
/ 72
Usable
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Product & Project Management |
#45
/ 110
Strong
|
#21
/ 110
Excellent
|
DeepSeek V3.2 |
| RAG, Safety & Grounding |
#59
/ 113
Excellent
|
#83
/ 113
Excellent
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Research & Competitive Analysis |
#29
/ 110
Strong
|
#53
/ 110
Usable
|
Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Knowledge & Docs |
#66
/ 110
Usable
|
#58
/ 110
Usable
|
DeepSeek V3.2 |
| Customer Support |
#81
/ 113
Usable
|
#74
/ 113
Usable
|
DeepSeek V3.2 |
| Summarization & Meeting Notes |
#34
/ 110
Excellent
|
#30
/ 110
Excellent
|
DeepSeek V3.2 |
Rank = position among every model config we tested in that task area (lower is better). Sorted by biggest gap first.
Same task, both models — judged
Both models answered the same test case; an independent judge graded each. Quotes are the judge's actual rationale.
Sales
Broker discovery with a value hypothesis (Discovery Call Prep)
“The response is expert-level and production-ready. It perfectly adopts the logistics-native brand voice, uses the verified facts effectively, and structures the call around a highly credible value hypothesis and excellent open, implication-focused questions. It is difficult to improve.”
“The model completely misunderstood the task, writing a cold outreach email instead of a discovery call prep document. It pitched the product heavily, failed to include MEDDIC qualification, and provided leading/closed questions rather than a full listening-led call sequence.”
Coding
Stale React state update (Bug Fixing)
“The model perfectly diagnoses the root cause (stale closure and batching) and provides the standard, correct fix (functional updater). The explanation is exceptionally clear and accurate, and the fix is minimal.”
“The model correctly identifies the root cause (stale closure and batching) and provides the standard functional updater fix (Solution 1). However, Solution 3 is silently wrong. Because `count` is a `const` primitive captured in the closure, forcing a synchronous re-render with `flushSync` does not update the `count` variable in the currently executing `onClick` function. All three calls in Solution 3 will still evaluate to `setCount(1)`. Providing a broken solution violates the correctness gate.”
Frequently asked
Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than DeepSeek V3.2?
Across 22 task areas we benchmarked, Claude Opus 4.6 ranks higher in 16 and DeepSeek V3.2 in 6.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or DeepSeek V3.2?
DeepSeek V3.2 costs 52.4× less per token ($0.572 vs $30 per 1M).
What is Claude Opus 4.6 better at?
Claude Opus 4.6 out-ranks DeepSeek V3.2 at AI Strategy, Sales, Translation & Localization.
What is DeepSeek V3.2 better at?
DeepSeek V3.2 out-ranks Claude Opus 4.6 at Structured Output, Frontend & Landing Pages, Product & Project Management.
More comparisons
This page is Spring Prompt, running in public
We just did this for every model. Do it for your prompt.
The rankings above come from running real tasks through real models and scoring every output. Spring Prompt is that same engine — pointed at your prompt, your test cases, and your definition of good.
- Generate test cases from your prompt — no eval set required to start.
- Compare models side by side with quality, cost and latency in one matrix.
- Optimise the winner until the scores say it's ready to ship.
Prompt × model results
12 test cases · 3 evals