LLM7.io
LLM7.io
Toggle theme

Chat comparison

Anthropic logo

claude-opus-5vsDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

DeepSeek logo

Compare the things that matter before you build: current price, capabilities, and latest aggregated LLM7 statistics.

Current pricing

See the cost difference clearly

claude-opus-5

Checking current pricing…

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

Checking current pricing…

What's different

Only capabilities that differ between these models are listed. Green highlights the broader supported option or larger context window.

Input formats

claude-opus-5

text, image

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

text

Vision

claude-opus-5Better fit

Supported

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

Not supported

Latest LLM7 statistics

Recent aggregated percentages and response-time metrics from LLM7, not a global model benchmark or traffic disclosure.

Recent stability

claude-opus-5

97.49%

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

96.78%

Average response time

claude-opus-5

16,903.5 ms

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

4,484.83 ms

P95 API latency

claude-opus-5

60,000 ms

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

30,000 ms

Side-by-side trends

Shared charts make the observed differences easier to read. Metrics without enough history stay hidden.

Request success rate

Both models on the same scale

claude-opus-5: 100%DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash: 98.4%
12 Sept30 Sept

Average API latency

Both models on the same scale

claude-opus-5: 9,496 msDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash: 8,962 ms
12 Sept30 Sept

P95 API latency

Both models on the same scale

claude-opus-5: 30,000 msDeepSeek-V4.1-Flash: 30,000 ms
12 Sept30 Sept

Estimate your workload

Published rates are loaded from the pricing API; per-request quotes are billed from actual provider usage.

Checking current pricing…
Checking current pricing…

Quick take

  • claude-opus-5 supports image input while the other model does not.
  • The recent stability rates are too close to distinguish meaningfully.
  • DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash recorded a lower observed p95 API latency on LLM7 during this period.

Keep exploring