SmophyAI

Published daily · Next update 02:00 UTC

Real data comparison

Anthropic: Claude Opus 5.5 (batch) vs DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (batch)

On quality, Anthropic: Claude Opus 5.5 (batch) leads (57.6 vs 39.5). On price, DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (batch) is cheaper ($0.20 vs $8.00 per 1M). In real production usage, DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (batch) is used more (rank #4 vs #339 of 353).

  • Anthropic: Claude Opus 5.5 (batch)
  • DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (batch)
Quality (Intelligence Index)57.6 / 39.5
Price ($/1M blended)$8.00 / $0.20
Average usage share0.00% / 10.69%
Context window1,000,000 / 1,048,576
Quality per dollar7.2 pts/$ / 197.5 pts/$

Usage share over time

18.62%13.97%9.31%4.66%0.00%Share of usageSep 10Sep 16Sep 22

Frequently asked questions

Anthropic: Claude Opus 5.5 (batch) vs DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (batch): which is better quality?

Anthropic: Claude Opus 5.5 (batch) scores higher on Artificial Analysis's Intelligence Index (57.6 vs 39.5).

Anthropic: Claude Opus 5.5 (batch) vs DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (batch): which is cheaper?

DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (batch) is cheaper at $0.20/1M vs $8.00/1M.

Anthropic: Claude Opus 5.5 (batch) vs DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (batch): which is used more?

DeepSeek: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (batch) has higher real OpenRouter usage share (rank #4 vs #339 of 353).

Source: OpenRouter (openrouter.ai/rankings), as of September 23, 2026.

Benchmark scores: Artificial Analysis (artificialanalysis.ai) via OpenRouter (openrouter.ai/rankings).

Methodology: www.smophy.ai/benchmark/methodology

Token counts originate from each provider's own tokenizer and are not directly comparable across providers.