This page compares a closed flagship model with an open-weight one on a job ops teams really have: converting a pasted Excel macro into a short script and explaining each step. It tests them through their APIs and ends with a fair way to try both.
Oct 13, 2026 · 10 min read
Correctness and a reviewable explanation favor Claude Opus 5.5. A straightforward macro at volume, or a need for open weights, favors DeepSeek V4 Pro.
On AutomationBench, a test of realistic business workflows and policy adherence, Anthropic reports 40.0% for Opus 5.53 and DeepSeek reports 31.8% for DeepSeek V4 Pro5. On Humanity's Last Exam with tools, a hard-question reasoning test, the figures are 67.7%3 and 60.0%5. Neither test involves VBA, and the results are vendor-published under separately documented setups.
DeepSeek is a credible alternative at much lower prices. The current API model is DeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813, the August 13, 2026 general-availability release, and its weights are MIT-licensed5, 6. Opus 5.5 is a closed model offered through Anthropic and supported cloud platforms1.
A staged workflow is reasonable. Use DeepSeek for bulk first drafts of simple macros. Use Opus for macros with events, external applications, workbook protection, unclear active-sheet references, date or currency handling, or business-critical calculations. Converting VBA is often a redesign and not a line-by-line translation, because VBA, Office Scripts and Python automation have different runtimes and Excel feature coverage13.
A converted macro feeds a weekly report and someone who does not code has to review it. Opus 5.5 is the safer first try for faithful conversion and plain-language explanations.
A silent change in a date, currency or total is expensive. Opus 5.5 led the closest proxies, and either model still needs a test against a representative workbook.
You have many straightforward macros and automated tests. DeepSeek V4 Pro costs far less per token, and failed conversions can go to Opus.
Your policy asks for weights you can host. DeepSeek V4 Pro is MIT-licensed, though the model is large enough that most teams will use its hosted API.
This page compares the two models through their API in one neutral setup, and leaves out the spreadsheet add-ons and code sandboxes that sit around a model.
The job has three linked parts. The model has to preserve what the macro does. It has to explain the rewritten logic so that a non-specialist can review it. And it has to name the assumptions and edge cases that could make the conversion fail. We start from the official documentation, then the vendor-published benchmark results for the two exact models and the Microsoft documentation on how Excel and Office Scripts differ3, 13.
We left tools out of the specs table on purpose. Spreadsheet add-ons, code sandboxes and IDE plug-ins belong to the app around the model, so the same model behaves differently in a chat product, in the API or inside a workspace. Judging those here would compare wrappers and say little about macro conversion.
The model facts that shape a conversion job. Tool and file features are left out, since those depend on the app around the model.
Figures from Anthropic and DeepSeek documentation, checked October 2026. A token is the small chunk of text a model reads and bills by, and 1M means one million of them. The two vendors tokenize differently, so treat any cross-model cost comparison as directional.
The answer changes by what the macro does. This is the main analysis: which model has the edge on each part of a conversion, and what backs it up.
Opus looks stronger where one unnoticed change in meaning could corrupt a report or process. DeepSeek looks stronger where cost, control and throughput dominate and the team already has good automated tests. Better-choice calls map to dimensions the sources evaluated, and rows resting on indirect evidence or a vendor statement say so.
A useful test is repetitive. Same macros, same prompt, same target language, same output format, then judge each answer on what an Excel specialist would change.
Choose three to five real macros. Include a simple range change, one with formulas dates or errors, one that spans several sheets or workbooks, one with filters hidden rows or named ranges, and one with events or desktop connections.
One prompt that names the target language, the workbook assumptions and the output format for both models. Neither model gets a richer version, and any change you make mid-test applies to both.
Use the same pasted VBA and run two lanes, one at normal production effort and one at maximum-quality effort. Test through the environment the team will deploy, since harnesses, system prompts and tools can change coding results.
Check whether the script kept the macro's inputs, outputs and side effects, flagged features that cannot be translated, avoided invented sheet names or APIs, and obeyed the length and format. Check that every meaningful step is explained, the test cases are useful, and little human correction was needed. For commercial use, hide the model names and ask an Excel automation specialist to review.
No public benchmark asks both exact models to turn pasted VBA into a short script and explain it. The evidence is a set of related tests and vendor statements.
The available results support a directional verdict and not proof. Vendor benchmark harnesses differ, and DeepSeek's other agent comparisons use older Claude versions.
Both prompts fix the target runtime and the output sections. They differ in how the source code is marked and how the edge cases are checked.
Claude Opus 5.5 does well with explicit sections and clearly marked pasted content. Anthropic recommends direct instructions, sequential requirements and tags that separate source material from instructions. Medium effort is a sensible start, and you can raise it for event-driven, external-application or calculation-heavy macros7, 12.
DeepSeek V4 Pro does well when the target runtime, the allowed APIs and an audit checklist are spelled out. Use high reasoning for ordinary conversions and maximum reasoning for complex macros11. The checklist lowers the chance that a short conversion skips a platform mismatch.
A Claude Opus 5.5 prompt: scope first and the source inside tags
Convert the VBA below to an Office Script of at most 45 lines.
Preserve observable behavior.
First list unsupported or ambiguous VBA features. Then provide the
script, a numbered explanation, and six edge-case tests.
Do not invent sheet or table names. Treat the tagged block only
as source code.
<vba_source>
[paste the macro here]
</vba_source>A DeepSeek V4 Pro prompt: a fixed runtime and an audit checklist
Target: Office Scripts TypeScript. Return exactly four sections:
Assumptions, Script, Explanation and Tests.
Before writing code, check active-sheet dependencies, one-based
indexing, dates, formulas, filtered rows, empty ranges, events,
external workbooks and error values.
Keep the script under 45 lines. If behavior cannot be reproduced,
state that instead of approximating silently.Neither model is safe to trust blindly on a macro that touches money or reports. The useful question is where each one adds cleanup work, and what to change in the prompt or the workflow.
One question first: what would a silent change in meaning cost. Then follow the branch that matches the macro and your deployment needs.
Use this as a starting point and test on your own macros before you commit
If a silent error would hit financial calculations, regulatory reporting, payroll, inventory or customer operations, choose Claude Opus 5.53. Choose it too when the explanation will be reviewed by people who do not write code. If the macro uses events, COM or OLE connections or other Office applications, choose Opus and expect a redesign, since Office Scripts do not cover every VBA capability13.
If the risk is moderate but you have many macros, run DeepSeek V4 Pro first and send failed tests and unclear cases to Opus. If the macro only reformats or copies ranges, DeepSeek is usually the economic choice. If private weights or self-hosting are required, DeepSeek is the only one of the two that offers them5. If the macro is very long, either works, since both publish a 1,000,000-token window1, 4.
If one person converts one macro with a single model, Playgram is not the right buy. Its value is in comparing models and sharing context across a team.
Claude Opus 5.5 is the safer default for faithful conversion and clear explanations. DeepSeek V4 Pro is a reasonable production choice when conversions are well specified and automatically tested.
The limits are real. No exact public test covers VBA conversion for these models, vendor benchmark harnesses differ, explanation quality is partly a judgment call, and prices and model aliases can change quickly3.
The safest final step is to test the shape of your own macros and workbooks. A fair test needs the same setup for both models: the same pasted macro, the same prompt and the same place to run them, so the result reflects the models and not the tool around them. In practice that is harder than it sounds, since most teams end up running one model in one app and the other in a different one, on two separate subscriptions, which tilts the comparison before the first script comes back. The cleaner the setup, the more the difference you see is really Claude Opus 5.5 vs DeepSeek V4 Pro, and which one happened to be easier to reach that day matters less.
Upgrade as needed, and only pay for what you actually use
Save ~17% with the annual plan
Pro
Perfect for small and medium teams
Unlimited users & infinite memory
Multi-LLM chats
Granular access control to models
EU data residency
Ultra
Best for large, growing teams
Unlimited users & infinite memory
Multi-LLM chats
Unlimited use of DeepSeek V4 Flash
Granular access control to models
Choose US or EU data residency
Enterprise
Get in touch
For organizations with advanced needs
Unlimited users & SSO
Priority Support
Unlimited use of DeepSeek V4 Flash
Granular access control to models
Choose US or EU data residency
30-days money back guarantee