Claude Opus 5 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro
Which one, when — curated verdict, not a benchmark table
Both share a 1000000-token context and can turn thinking off, so the split is modality and rate card: claude-opus-5 accepts image input alongside text and carries an explicit thinking capability, while deepseek-v4-pro is text-only but runs about 3.1x cheaper on input ($1.608 vs $5), about 7.8x cheaper on output ($3.216 vs $25), and roughly 37x cheaper on cache reads ($0.0134 vs $0.5). Pick claude-opus-5 when screenshots or diagrams are part of the prompt; pick deepseek-v4-pro for high-volume text and code work, where its 393216-token max output also beats the 128000 cap.
Pricing
| Claude Opus 5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $5 | $1.608 | 3.1× |
| Output / 1M tokens | $25 | $3.216 | 7.8× |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | $0.5 | $0.0134 | 37× |
| Cache write | 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) | no separate charge | — |
Rates from the live catalog at build time; each model page carries the current card.
Where they sit — input price per 1M tokens across all 63 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)
Capabilities
| Claude Opus 5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Tool use | yes | yes |
| Thinking control | configurable | configurable |
| Structured output | yes | yes |
| Prompt caching | explicit (you mark the prefix) | implicit (automatic) |
| Cache lifetime | 5m default, 1h option | no fixed TTL (evicted when unused) |
| Minimum cached prefix | 1024 tokens | not published |
Specs
| Claude Opus 5 | DeepSeek V4 Pro | |
|---|---|---|
| Input modalities | text image | text |
| Output modalities | text | text |
| Released | 2026-07-24 | 2026-04-24 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2026-05 | — |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 393K |
| Thinking parameter |
|
|
| Accepted values | thinking.type
effort
| thinking.type
reasoning_effort
|
| Default | thinking on effort
| enabled, with reasoning_effort high some complex agent requests are automatically set to max |
Specs are transcribed from each vendor’s documentation; a row a vendor does not publish is left out rather than inferred. Full sources: Claude Opus 5 · DeepSeek V4 Pro
One prompt, both models — measured through the gateway
Claude Opus 5 passed · 3 sentences
When reasoning is enabled, the model generates a hidden chain of "thinking" tokens before it writes the visible answer, and those internal tokens are billed at the output rate even though no one ever sees them — commonly 3–10x more tokens than the response itself. Because output tokens are priced several times higher than input tokens, that added volume hits us at our most expensive rate, which is why the bill roughly doubled while our request count stayed flat. The spend is controllable: we can cap the reasoning budget per call, route only genuinely hard requests to reasoning mode and cheaper models for the rest, and track cost per successfully completed task rather than cost per token, since a single correct answer usually beats three cheap retries plus human cleanup.
out 529 tok latency 9.0 s
DeepSeek V4 Pro passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning causes the model to generate a lengthy internal chain‑of‑thought before it delivers a visible answer, and we are billed for every one of those hidden reasoning tokens just as we are for the final output. In most interactions, the volume of these unseen tokens at least equals the visible response, effectively doubling the total tokens consumed per query. That doubled token consumption translates directly into a doubled per‑query cost, which is why our overall LLM bill doubled.
out 641 tok (+545 thinking) latency 11.5 s
Instruction following (exactly three sentences — countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.
Claude Opus 5 passed · 8/8 cases
## Fixed version ```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 if cur > best: best = cur return best ``` ## The bug The counters were tracking the wrong quantity: `cur` counted *matching adjacent pairs* rather than *elements in the current run*, and both counters started at `0` instead of `1`. Since a run of length *n* contains only *n − 1* adjacent equal pairs, every result came back one too small — `[1, 1]` returned 1, `[3, 3, 3]` returned 2 — and a single-element list returned 0 because the loop body never executed and `best` kept its initial value of `0`. […]
out 1094 tok latency 16.1 s
DeepSeek V4 Pro passed · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 best = max(best, cur) else: cur = 1 return best ``` **Explanation:** The bug stems from initializing `cur = 0` and only incrementing it when two adjacent elements match, which counts the number of *additional* equal elements rather than the actual run length (which is `cur + 1`). As a result, the returned `best` is always one less than the true longest run—most obviously returning 0 for a single-element list instead of 1. […]
out 2418 tok (+2131 thinking) latency 35.6 s
Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.
Claude Opus 5 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "Withheld pending Q4 close"
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "Q3", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": "Withheld pending Q4 close" } ``` Notes on judgment calls: - **quarter**: "September quarter" is labeled Q3 because the text refers to an upcoming "Q4 close," implying a calendar-aligned fiscal year. No fiscal year is given. - **revenue_usd_m**: 412 is stated as constant-currency and hedged ("call it"), so it's approximate; the currency is not explicitly stated as USD. - **growth_pct**: "up eleven and change" means slightly more than 11, so 11 is a floor rather than an exact figure.
out 539 tok latency 7.6 s
DeepSeek V4 Pro passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null
{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": "eleven and change", "guidance": null }
out 1204 tok (+1153 thinking) latency 19.9 s
Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.
Claude Opus 5 passed · 123 words, 0 banned, 1 question
**Cross-Provider Prompt Caching** We're introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Caching in the API Gateway. Repeated system prompts, long documents, and few-shot examples are stored once at the gateway layer and reused across OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and self-hosted models. Instead of paying full input token costs on every request, your application sends a cache reference, and the gateway rehydrates the context before forwarding it downstream. Why does that matter? Teams running high-volume agents and retrieval pipelines typically see input token spend fall 40 to 70 percent, with median latency dropping by several hundred milliseconds. Caches are scoped per project, encrypted at rest, and invalidated automatically when a prompt template changes. Enable it with a single header, and see the docs for TTL tuning and per-route controls.
out 1593 tok latency 19.1 s
DeepSeek V4 Pro no answer to grade · no answer text within 16,384 tokens (all of it went to thinking)
The model returned no answer text — the whole token budget went to hidden thinking.
out 8193 tok (+8192 thinking) latency 106.2 s
Constraint obedience (word budget, banned-word list, the single question), style fingerprint, and length control.
Switch between them with one line
Both ids are in every tab below — the highlighted pair of lines is the only edit. Same endpoint, same key, same request shape.
from openai import OpenAI
client = OpenAI(
base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
api_key="sk-syn-...",
)
resp = client.chat.completions.create(
model="claude-opus-5",
# model="deepseek-v4-pro", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)import OpenAI from "openai";
const client = new OpenAI({
baseURL: "https://synthorai.io/v1",
apiKey: "sk-syn-...",
});
const resp = await client.chat.completions.create({
model: "claude-opus-5",
// model: "deepseek-v4-pro", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages: [{ role: "user", content: "Summarize this diff" }],
reasoning_effort: "medium",
});
console.log(resp.choices[0].message.content);curl https://synthorai.io/v1/chat/completions \
-H "Authorization: Bearer sk-syn-..." \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"model": "claude-opus-5",
# "model": "deepseek-v4-pro", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Hello"}],
"reasoning_effort": "medium"
}'package main
import (
"context"
"fmt"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3/option"
)
func main() {
client := openai.NewClient(
option.WithBaseURL("https://synthorai.io/v1"),
option.WithAPIKey("sk-syn-..."),
)
resp, _ := client.Chat.Completions.New(context.TODO(), openai.ChatCompletionNewParams{
Model: "claude-opus-5",
// Model: "deepseek-v4-pro", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
Messages: []openai.ChatCompletionMessageParamUnion{
openai.UserMessage("Summarize this diff"),
},
ReasoningEffort: openai.ReasoningEffortMedium,
})
fmt.Println(resp.Choices[0].Message.Content)
}import com.openai.client.OpenAIClient;
import com.openai.client.okhttp.OpenAIOkHttpClient;
import com.openai.models.chat.completions.*;
import com.openai.models.ReasoningEffort;
OpenAIClient client = OpenAIOkHttpClient.builder()
.baseUrl("https://synthorai.io/v1")
.apiKey("sk-syn-...")
.build();
ChatCompletion resp = client.chat().completions().create(
ChatCompletionCreateParams.builder()
.model("claude-opus-5")
// .model("deepseek-v4-pro") // uncomment this line, comment the one above
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));FAQ
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5 or DeepSeek V4 Pro?
DeepSeek V4 Pro is cheaper on input / 1m tokens ($1.608 vs $5, 3.1× apart). Other rows may point the other way — the table above carries the full card, and real cost depends on your mix.
Can I A/B test Claude Opus 5 against DeepSeek V4 Pro without two integrations?
Yes. Both are served through the same OpenAI-compatible endpoint with one API key — switching is a one-line model-string change, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.
Do Claude Opus 5 and DeepSeek V4 Pro support prompt caching?
Yes — both bill cached reads below their input rate, so warm-prefix workloads cost less than the list rates suggest. The exact cache-read rows are in the pricing table above.