| Signal | Claude Opus 4 | Delta | R1 |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 83 | +33 | |
Pricing | 75 | +73 | |
Context window size | 84 | +8 | |
Recency | 79 | +22 | |
Output Capacity | 75 | +5 | |
Benchmarks | 0 | -80 | |
| Overall Result | 5 wins | of 6 | 1 wins |
30
days ranked higher
0
days
0
days ranked higher
Anthropic
DeepSeek
R1 saves you $5055.00/month
That's $60660.00/year compared to Claude Opus 4 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4 | R1 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 81 | 66 | Claude Opus 4 |
| Rank | #67 | #159 | Claude Opus 4 |
| Quality Rank | #67 | #159 | Claude Opus 4 |
| Adoption Rank | #67 | #159 | Claude Opus 4 |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 200K | 64K | Claude Opus 4 |
| Pricing | $15.00/$75.00/M | $0.70/$2.50/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 83 | 50 | Claude Opus 4 |
| Pricing | 75 | 3 | Claude Opus 4 |
| Context window size | 84 | 76 | Claude Opus 4 |
| Recency | 79 | 57 | Claude Opus 4 |
| Output Capacity | 75 | 70 | Claude Opus 4 |
| Benchmarks | -- | 80 | R1 |
Our composite score (0–100) combines six weighted signals: benchmark performance (25%), pricing efficiency (25%), context window size (15%), model recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and capability versatility (10%). Here's what the scores mean for these two models:
Scores 81/100 (rank #67), placing it in the top 77% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 66/100 (rank #159), placing it in the top 46% of all 290 models tracked.
Claude Opus 4 has a 15-point advantage, which typically translates to noticeably stronger performance on complex reasoning, code generation, and multi-step tasks.
R1 offers 96% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $48.00/month with R1 vs $1350.00/month with Claude Opus 4 — a $1302.00 monthly difference.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Higher benchmark score (0/100) indicates stronger performance on coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Faster response time (speed score 0/100) is critical for user-facing chat. R1 also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (200K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($2.50/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (81/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input — can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
Claude Opus 4 clearly outperforms R1 with a significant 15.099999999999994-point lead. For most general use cases, Claude Opus 4 is the stronger choice. However, R1 may still excel in niche scenarios.
Best for Quality
Claude Opus 4
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
R1
96% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Claude Opus 4
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Claude Opus 4
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Claude Opus 4
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Anthropic
| Capability | Claude Opus 4 | R1 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input)differs | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Searchdiffers | ||
| Image Output |
Anthropic
DeepSeek
R1 saves you $112.74/month
That's 96% cheaper than Claude Opus 4 at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | Claude Opus 4 | R1 |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 200K | 64K |
| Max Output Tokens | 32,000 | 16,000 |
| Open Source | No | Yes |
| Created | May 22, 2025 | Jan 20, 2025 |
Claude Opus 4 scores 81/100 (rank #67) compared to R1's 66/100 (rank #159), giving it a 15-point advantage. Claude Opus 4 is the stronger overall choice, though R1 may excel in specific areas like cost efficiency.
Claude Opus 4 is ranked #67 and R1 is ranked #159 out of 290+ AI models. Rankings use a composite score combining benchmark performance (25%), pricing (25%), context window (15%), recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and versatility (10%). Scores update hourly.
R1 is cheaper at $2.50/M output tokens vs Claude Opus 4's $75.00/M output tokens — 30.0x more expensive. Input token pricing: Claude Opus 4 at $15.00/M vs R1 at $0.70/M.
Claude Opus 4 has a larger context window of 200,000 tokens compared to R1's 64,000 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.