Claude Opus 5 vs Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro +5 more
Claude Opus 5 scores higher overall across category strength profiles (74 vs 57 for DeepSeek V4 Pro); only 0 benchmarks are directly comparable.
Every comparison computes an overall 0–100 score from benchmark wins, category strengths and coverage — so the winner is visible on each card, even when the models share only a few benchmarks.
21 comparisons
Claude Opus 5 scores higher overall across category strength profiles (74 vs 57 for DeepSeek V4 Pro); only 0 benchmarks are directly comparable.
Flint-40B-A2.5B scores higher overall across category strength profiles (63 vs 63 for Qwen3.8-27B); only 1 benchmarks are directly comparable.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B wins this comparison with an overall score of 86 vs 67 for Qwen3.5-35B-A3B, leading 18 of 22 shared benchmarks.
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B wins this comparison with an overall score of 84 vs 63 for Qwen3.6-35B-A3B, leading 14 of 17 shared benchmarks.
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next wins this comparison with an overall score of 58 vs 52 for Qwen3.5-27B, leading 3 of 4 shared benchmarks.
Claude Opus 5 scores higher overall across category strength profiles (60 vs 52 for Claude Opus 4.8); only 0 benchmarks are directly comparable.
Qwen3.8-27B wins this comparison with an overall score of 84 vs 63 for Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B, leading 6 of 9 shared benchmarks.
Bonsai 2 27B — GGUF wins this comparison with an overall score of 75 vs 71 for Claude 4.5 Opus, leading 3 of 4 shared benchmarks.
Qwen3.8-27B wins this comparison with an overall score of 92 vs 53 for Raon-1 mini, leading 14 of 18 shared benchmarks.
Qwen3.8-27B wins this comparison with an overall score of 87 vs 56 for Qwen3.6-35B-A3B, leading 30 of 32 shared benchmarks.
Claude Opus 4.7 wins this comparison with an overall score of 81 vs 66 for Claude Opus 4.6, leading 5 of 7 shared benchmarks.
Qwen3.8-2.4T-A95B scores higher overall across category strength profiles (63 vs 59 for Qwen3.5-27B); only 0 benchmarks are directly comparable.
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next wins this comparison with an overall score of 66 vs 52 for Qwen3.5-27B, leading 11 of 12 shared benchmarks.
Qwen3.8-27B wins this comparison with an overall score of 71 vs 56 for Qwen3.6-27B, leading 18 of 22 shared benchmarks.
Qwen3.6-27B wins this comparison with an overall score of 88 vs 66 for Qwen3.6-35B-A3B, leading 42 of 50 shared benchmarks.
Qwen3.8-27B wins this comparison with an overall score of 87 vs 56 for Qwen3.6-35B-A3B, leading 30 of 32 shared benchmarks.
GLM-5.3 wins this comparison with an overall score of 85 vs 44 for GLM-5.3-Flash, leading 4 of 6 shared benchmarks.
GLM-5.3-Flash wins this comparison with an overall score of 85 vs 55 for GLM-5.2, leading 6 of 6 shared benchmarks.
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next wins this comparison with an overall score of 89 vs 63 for Qwen3.8-27B, leading 24 of 25 shared benchmarks.
Qwen3.8-27B wins this comparison with an overall score of 84 vs 54 for Qwen3.6-27B, leading 5 of 6 shared benchmarks.