Cost
$4.08per task
Cost per task. One Intelligence Index task at list price, every token counted. Run at max effort.
Claude Opus model by Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.8
An earlier Claude Opus release, still available on the Claude API.
Where it sits in Anthropic's lineup
- Claude HaikuAnthropic's small, fast Claude model family for high-volume, latency-sensitive work.Claude Haiku 5.5
- Claude SonnetAnthropic's balanced Claude model family.Claude Sonnet 5.5
- Claude OpusAnthropic's high-capability Claude model family.You are on Claude Opus 4.8. Current:Claude Opus 5.5
- Claude FableAnthropic's Claude family for demanding reasoning and long-horizon agentic work.Claude Fable 5.1
- Offered in
- 4 products
- Made by
- Anthropic
- Family
- Claude Opus, version 4.8
- Released
- May 28, 2026 Legacy
- In its family
- Release 4 of 6 in Claude Opus. The newest is Claude Opus 5.5.
Strengths and weaknesses
Compare with other models Up to 3 beside Claude Opus 4.8
- Claude Opus 4.8
Suggested comparisons
The models a buyer weighs against Claude Opus 4.8, picked on list price and on Artificial Analysis's Intelligence Index of overall quality. Add one to draw it beside Claude Opus 4.8.
Claude Opus 4.8
Ranked against the 40 current releases on this chart, Claude Opus 4.8 ranks 11th of 39 on Hard reasoning and 9th of 31 on Factuality. On Computer use, OSWorld team's runs on OSWorld 2.0 put Claude Opus 4.8 5.9 points above Claude Opus 4.7 and 13.3 points above Claude Sonnet 4.6. Instruction following is Artificial Analysis's run on IFBench, marked on the chart. It ranks lowest on Long context, 34th of 39 and Tool use, 33rd of 39. Multimodal: not yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026.
Each axis is one public benchmark at one setting, on its own fixed 0 to 100 scale, so adding a model never moves another. A dotted bridge crosses a missing result, which is never a zero. A hollow mark is a result from another source: the maker's own figure or another lab's run, where the benchmark's usual source has not tested the model yet. The readout names it.
On the chart
- Claude Opus 4.8This pageResults on 11 of 12 axes$5 / $2566 tokens/sFirst token in 40 s
Prices and speeds read between Oct 26, 2026 and Oct 28, 2026.
Claude Opus 4.8 on each axis11 of 12 with a result
The share of Terminal-Bench 4.0's long terminal tasks the model finishes on its own: services, kernels, proofs and data pipelines, graded on the final artifact with no partial credit.
Terminal-Bench 4.0, pass@1 averaged over 3 runs, mini-swe-agent harness
- Claude Opus 4.823.2%
The share of SciCode's scientific programming subproblems the model's code solves on the first attempt.
SciCode, subproblem accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run
- Claude Opus 4.854.4%
The share of FrontierMath's held-out research-grade problems (tiers 1 to 3) the model answers correctly.
FrontierMath Tiers 1-3, accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run
- Claude Opus 4.880%
The share of GPQA Diamond's graduate-level biology, chemistry and physics questions the model answers correctly.
GPQA Diamond, accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run
- Claude Opus 4.891%
The share of Humanity's Last Exam's 2,158 text-only questions, expert-written at the edge of human knowledge, the model answers correctly without tools.
Humanity's Last Exam, accuracy, text-only questions, no tools
- Claude Opus 4.848.7%
The share of each AutomationBench task's objectives the model completes by calling REST APIs across simulated business apps (Gmail, Sheets, Slack, Salesforce, Zendesk, Jira, HubSpot), averaged over tasks. A task that breaks one of its policy guardrails scores zero.
AutomationBench-AA, score, Artificial Analysis run
- Claude Opus 4.845.6%
How much of each OSWorld 2.1 workflow the model completes by operating a real Ubuntu desktop through screenshots, mouse and keyboard: all 108 long tasks across apps, files, mail and browsers, on the September 2026 v2.1 release of the task files. A point is the mean share of each task's weighted checks the model passes (the partial score, as a percentage). The OSWorld team's own runs come first. Where the team has not run a release, the point is another lab's run or the maker's own published figure, marked with who ran it and the benchmark it ran: OSWorld 2.1 in the maker's harness, OSWorld 2.0's offline set or the earlier OSWorld-Verified. Those points are drawn so the release has a figure, and they are not ranked against the team's runs.
OSWorld 2.1, partial score, full 108-task set, v2.1 release. Where it has no run of a model, the maker's own figure or another lab's run stands in, marked with its benchmark.
- Claude Opus 4.854.8%OSWorld team's runBenchmark: OSWorld 2.0, partial score, full task set, v2026.06.24 release. From another source, so it is drawn and marked but not ranked with the others.The OSWorld team's own run at max effort with its batched tool and a 500-step budget, on the v2026.08.08 task release. It fully completed 20.6% of tasks; the standard tool setting scored 49.33.
The share of AA-LCR's questions the model answers correctly by reasoning across long sets of real documents, about 100K tokens each.
AA-LCR v1.1, accuracy, Artificial Analysis run
- Claude Opus 4.877.7%
The share of MMMU-Pro's college-level questions over charts, diagrams and photos the model answers correctly.
MMMU-Pro, overall accuracy, no tools
- Claude Opus 4.8Not yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026
The share of AA-Omniscience's 6,000 knowledge questions across 42 economically relevant topics the model answers correctly from memory, without search.
AA-Omniscience Accuracy, accuracy, Artificial Analysis run
- Claude Opus 4.848.8%Hallucination rate 39.3% in the same run (lower is better)
The share of SpeechMap's 2,120 sensitive and controversial but legal requests the model answers in full: arguments, essays and explanations on contested themes in politics, religion, race, sex, history and similar topics, four wordings per theme across 530 themes. SpeechMap's judge rates each response complete, evasive (hedged or redirected), a denial, or an error (the provider's API blocked the request). Only complete answers count, so the point is the share answered in full: 100 minus the share hedged, refused or blocked by the provider. Higher means more lawful requests answered in full. The share blocked at the provider is printed apart in the table, because an API error is not the model declining. Where SpeechMap runs a release both with reasoning off and with reasoning on (a -reasoning or -thinking entry), the reasoning-on entry is used; a release with one entry uses that entry.
SpeechMap, % Complete over 2,120 contested requests, reasoning-on entry
- Claude Opus 4.867.4%With thinking on, SpeechMap counted 25.2% of requests denied and 7.0% evaded. With thinking off, the model completes 43.4%.0.4% of requests failed at the provider and count against it
The share of MultiChallenge's multi-turn conversations in which the model keeps every instruction it was given earlier in the conversation.
MultiChallenge, accuracy, Scale AI run. Where it has no run of a model, the maker's own figure or another lab's run stands in, marked with its benchmark.
- Claude Opus 4.862.2%Artificial Analysis's runBenchmark: IFBench, accuracy, Artificial Analysis IFBench run. From another source, so it is drawn and marked but not ranked with the others.Artificial Analysis ran Claude Opus 4.8 at max effort in its own evaluation harness.
Cost, speed, capacity, quality and accuracy for Claude Opus 4.8, with where each figure sits among the 41 models GILD tracks. These measures stand beside the chart and never feed it.
Speed
60tokens a second
Output speed. How fast it writes once the answer starts. Run at max effort.
- First token
- 40 s
- Whole answer
- 49 s
Capacity
1Mtokens
Context window. The most one request can hold, as the maker states it.
- Reads
- Text, Images
Quality
41.8of 100
Intelligence Index. One composite score across independent evaluations. Run at max effort.
- GDPval knowledge work
- 1,454 Elo
- Terminal-Bench 4.0
- 21.7%
- Epoch Capabilities Index
- 159
Hallucination
39.3%wrong when it should say “I don’t know”
Hallucination rate. Of the questions it can't get right, how often it answers anyway. Lower is better. Run at max effort.
- Knowledge accuracy
- 48.8%
Where you can get it
14of 19 routes
Routes offering it. Of the clouds, gateways and coding products GILD tracks, those offering it today.
- Open weights
- No
- Licence
- Commercial Terms of Service
Figures from Artificial Analysis, Anthropic, Epoch AI and GILD's route matrix, read Oct 26 to Nov 1, 2026. Each measure's definition and source open under . Not yet published for Claude Opus 4.8: Cached input and Max output.
Every value with its benchmark, run and source
| Axis | Benchmark and setting | Claude Opus 4.8 | Run | Source | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic coding | Terminal-Bench 4.0Pass@1 averaged over 3 runs, mini-swe-agent harness | 23.2% | Claude Opus 4.8Effort: not published. Harness: mini-swe-agent. | Vals.ai | Oct 24, 2026 |
| Code | SciCodeSubproblem accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run | 54.4% | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Math | FrontierMath Tiers 1-3Accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run | 80% | Effort: max. Harness: none. | Epoch AI | May 28, 2026 |
| Science | GPQA DiamondAccuracy, pass@1, highest effort run | 91% | Effort: max. Harness: none. | Epoch AI | May 28, 2026 |
| Hard reasoning | Humanity's Last ExamAccuracy, text-only questions, no tools | 48.7% | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Tool use | AutomationBench-AAScore, Artificial Analysis run | 45.6% | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: Artificial Analysis AutomationBench harness. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Computer use | OSWorld 2.0Partial score, full task set, v2026.06.24 release. The OSWorld team's own run at max effort with its batched tool and a 500-step budget, on the v2026.08.08 task release. It fully completed 20.6% of tasks; the standard tool setting scored 49.33.Stands in for OSWorld 2.1, partial score, full 108-task set, v2.1 release, which has no run of Claude Opus 4.8 yet. | 54.8% | Claude Opus 4.8Effort: max. Harness: OSWorld team harness. | OSWorld teamRun by OSWorld team | Oct 15, 2026 |
| Long context | AA-LCR v1.1Accuracy, Artificial Analysis run | 77.7% | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
| Multimodal | MMMU-ProOverall accuracy, no tools | Not yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026 | |||
| Factuality | AA-Omniscience AccuracyAccuracy, Artificial Analysis run | 48.8%Hallucination rate 39.3% in the same run (lower is better) | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none. | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Answers in full | SpeechMap% Complete over 2,120 contested requests, reasoning-on entry. With thinking on, SpeechMap counted 25.2% of requests denied and 7.0% evaded. With thinking off, the model completes 43.4%. | 67.4%0.4% of requests failed at the provider and count against it | Effort: reasoning on. Harness: none. | SpeechMap.AI | Oct 27, 2026 |
| Instruction following | IFBenchAccuracy, Artificial Analysis IFBench run. Artificial Analysis ran Claude Opus 4.8 at max effort in its own evaluation harness.Stands in for MultiChallenge, accuracy, Scale AI run, which has no run of Claude Opus 4.8 yet. | 62.2% | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none. | Artificial AnalysisRun by Artificial Analysis | Oct 28, 2026 |
Price and speed
- Claude Opus 4.8 lists at $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens. Anthropic pricing, Oct 26, 2026.
- Claude Opus 4.8, at max effort, writes 65.9 output tokens per second on Anthropic's API, and its first token arrives 40 s after the request. Artificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026.
- Fastest on the chart is the shortest time to a 500-token answer: time to first token plus 500 tokens at the median output speed.
Every model with a result, axis by axis
57 models. A maker's own figure and another lab's run are marked with their benchmark; a missing result reads "Not yet published", never zero.
| Model | Agentic coding | Code | Math | Science | Hard reasoning | Tool use | Computer use | Long context | Multimodal | Factuality | Answers in full | Instructions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.8 | 23.2% | 54.4% | 80% | 91% | 48.7% | 45.6% | 54.8%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 77.7% | Not yet published | 48.8% | 67.4% | 62.2%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Haiku 5.5 | 36.4% | 55% | 75.1% | 89.6% | 44.4% | 35.4% | 72.4%Reported by AnthropicOSWorld 2.1 | 82.7% | Not yet published | 34.7% | 78.8% | 67.7% |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 | 64.1% | 61% | 88.8% | 95.6% | 55% | 71.8% | 80.1%Reported by Anthropic | 82.7% | Not yet published | 51.5% | 81.6% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 5.5 | 65.2% | 66.9% | 91.2% | 90.6% | 61.4% | 69.5% | 81.8%Reported by Anthropic | 84.7% | 87.7% | 65.5% | 82.8% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Fable 5.1 | 58.1% | 63.1% | 90.2% | 93.4%Run by Vals.ai | 59.1% | 59.4% | 80.7%Reported by Anthropic | 85.3% | 86.3%Run by Moonshot AI | 68.4% | 72.4% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 5 | 53.5% | 56.4% | 85.6% | 93.9% | 54.9% | 56.6% | 77.7% | 79.3% | 84.7% | 60.9% | 73.7% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Sonnet 5 | 10.6% | 54.3% | 65.6% | 80.3% | 41.3% | 36.5% | 57%Reported by Anthropic | 82% | 77.3% | 40.1% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Fable 5 | 41.4% | 61% | 87% | 85.9% | 55.5% | 54.1% | Not yet published | 82.3% | Not yet published | 65.4% | 64.8% | 63.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 4.7 | Not yet published | 54.5% | 70.2% | 86.4% | 42.3% | Not yet published | 48.9%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 78.7% | 78.8% | 48.9% | 70.2% | 58.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 3%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 50.1% | 71.1%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 78.8% | 33.6% | 20.1% | 41.5%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 80% | 73.3% | 40.9% | 35.8% | 56.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 4.6 | Not yet published | Not yet published | 66% | 88.4% | 39.9% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 78% | 75.4% | 47% | 59.9% | 37.2% |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Opus 4.5 | Not yet published | Not yet published | 34.4% | 86% | 30.1% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 77.3% | 74% | 46.6% | 57.5% | 59% |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | Not yet published | 42.2% | 66.7%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 71.2% | 10.4% | 3.2% | Not yet published | 74.3% | 58.6% | 18% | 24.7% | 50.5% |
| ||||||||||||
| Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Not yet published | 45.7% | 23.9% | 82.3% | 17.8% | 14.1% | Not yet published | 72.3% | 68.7% | 32.9% | 31.4% | 55.3% |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6.1 Terra | 49.5% | 55.1% | 90.9% | 94.3% | 46.2% | 60.2% | 74.2%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.1 | 82.7% | 84.7% | 47.6% | Not yet published | 74.2% |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6.1 Sol | 55.1% | 54.2% | 93.7% | 95.4% | 52.9% | 64.9% | 78%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.1 | 83% | 86% | 61.8% | 69.5% | 82% |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6 Luna | 13.6% | 54.6% | 78.9% | 90.5% | 38.5% | 53.2% | 48.9%Run by AnthropicOSWorld 2.1 | 83.3% | 79.7% | 39.6% | 63.4% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6 Astra | 59.6% | 56.5% | 93.7% | 95.8% | 54.7% | 68.5% | 75.8%Run by Meta | 80.7% | 86.9% | 61.6% | 68.2% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.6 Sol | 37.9% | 57.1% | 89.1% | 93.5% | 49.5% | 60.1% | 62.7%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 84% | 83.4% | 69.7%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | 72.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.6 Terra | 22.7% | 55% | 86% | 93.3% | 42.9% | 59.6% | Not yet published | 83% | 80.7% | 42.3% | Not yet published | 71.2%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.6 Luna | 11.6% | 53.6% | 82.1% | 91.6% | 39.5% | 50.2% | Not yet published | 83.7% | 78.6% | 41%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.5 | 14.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 55.8% | 85.3% | 93.5%Run by Artificial Analysis | 45.8% | 47.3% | 49.5%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.0 | 84.3% | 79.9% | 63%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | 75.9%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.4 | Not yet published | Not yet published | 78.6% | 93.3% | 43.7% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 82% | 78.4% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 73.9%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| gpt-oss-120b | 14.2%Run by Terminal-Bench (via Epoch AI)Terminal-Bench 2.0 | 34% | 88.9%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 75.8% | 19.6% | 0.2% | Not yet published | 52% | Not yet published | 16.8%Reported by OpenAISimpleQA | 36.3% | 45.3% |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-6 Sol | 44.4% | 57.6% | 89.8% | 94.3% | 47.9% | 61.6% | 64.4%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.0 | 83.7% | 82.9% | 54.5% | 64% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GPT-5.3-Codex | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | 91.5%Run by Artificial Analysis | 42.5% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 83.3% | 78.5% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 75.4%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemini 4 Argon | 57.6% | 61.8% | 86% | 96.4% | 57.1% | 77.5% | 69.2%Reported by GoogleOSWorld 2.0 | 79.7% | Not yet published | 48.3% | 87% | 78.7% |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemini 3.8 Flash | 19.7% | 56.6% | 68.4% | 95.4% | 47.8% | 59.9% | 59%Reported by GoogleOSWorld 2.0 | 81.3% | 85.6% | 50.5% | 86.1% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemma 4 31B | Not yet published | 45.5% | Not yet published | 85.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond | 23.6% | 4.9% | Not yet published | 69.7% | 73.4% | 10.4%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 82.3% | 75.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | 2.5% | 58.7% | 59.6% | 94.4% | 47% | 35.4% | Not yet published | 82% | 82.4% | 54.9% | 59.9% | 71.4% |
| ||||||||||||
| Gemini 3.6 Flash | 7.1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 53.4% | 58.9% | 94.1% | 40.8% | 53% | 83%Reported by GoogleOSWorld-Verified | 80% | 83.2% | 66.2%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 87.2% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | 31.8% | 55.9% | 71.2% | 93.2% | 43.3% | 66.6% | 69.3%Run by Moonshot AIOSWorld 2.1 | 82.7% | 80.6% | 39.6% | Not yet published | 74.9% |
| ||||||||||||
| DeepSeek V4 Pro | 14.1% | 51% | 64.6% | 91.7% | 41% | 56.7% | Not yet published | 80.3% | Not yet published | 45.2% | 72% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Kimi K3.1 Pro | 63.6% | 60.8% | Not yet published | 94.2%Reported by Moonshot AI | 52.5% | 73.3% | 79.6%Reported by Moonshot AIOSWorld 2.1 | 86.3% | 83.9% | 48.9% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Kimi K3 | 17.2% | 59.5% | 72.2% | 93.1% | 46.9% | 58.3% | Not yet published | 88.7% | 80.5% | 50.6%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 65.9% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Kimi K2.7 Code | 1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 47.8% | 54% | 87.9% | 35% | 24.5% | Not yet published | 79.3% | Not yet published | 36.5%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | 63.1%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Mistral Large 4 | 24.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | 57.8% | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | 26% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Mistral Medium 3.5 | 0%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 40.2% | Not yet published | 74.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond | 13.8% | 6.3% | Not yet published | 69.3% | 64.9% | 23% | 70.5% | 68.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Grok 4.7 | 28.8% | 57.4% | 53% | 92.7% | 43.1% | 65.6% | Not yet published | 76.7% | Not yet published | 42.7% | 64.1% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Grok 4.6 | 17.2% | 56.5% | 66% | 93.2% | 42.9% | 66.7% | Not yet published | 80.3% | Not yet published | 48.9%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 83.6% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Grok 4.5 | 8.6% | 55% | 57.2% | 93.4% | 42.7% | 57.9% | Not yet published | 79.3% | 80.4% | 48.3%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | 93.1% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| MiniMax M3.1 Flash | 25.3% | 53.4% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 48% | 72.5% | 61.7%Reported by MiniMaxOSWorld 2.0 | 79.7% | 79.1% | 45.1% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Mercury 3 | 3% | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| GLM-5.3-Flash | 37.4% | 51.6% | 55.8% | 90.2% | 39.9% | 60.4% | 59.1%Reported by Z.aiOSWorld 2.0 | 80% | 86%Run by Vals.aiMMMU-Pro | 28.2% | 65.4% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GLM-5.3 | 38.9% | 59% | 68.8% | 90.9% | 42.3% | 62.2% | Not yet published | 79.7% | Not yet published | 32.3% | 71.5% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| GLM-5.2 | 1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 51.2% | 59.2% | Not yet published | 41.1% | 28.4% | Not yet published | 78.3% | Not yet published | 34.2%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified | Not yet published | 73.3%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Muse Spark Open | 6.6% | 58.4% | 69.8% | 88.6% | 43.9% | 49.7% | 80.4%Reported by MetaOSWorld-Verified | 78.3% | 80.9% | 42% | Not yet published | 74.2% |
| ||||||||||||
| Muse Wonder | 49.5% | 60.3% | 82.1% | Not yet published | 50.1% | 68.1% | 72.6%Reported by Meta | 80.7% | Not yet published | 38% | 42.7% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Muse Spark 1.3 | 10.6% | 58.8% | 74% | 93.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond | 48.7% | 57.9% | 69.6% | 83% | 82% | 38% | 25.8% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Llama 4 Scout | Not yet published | 21.3% | 7.8%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 51.8% | 3.8% | 0.2% | Not yet published | 27.7% | 52.9% | Not yet published | 70.1% | 39.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Llama 4 Maverick | Not yet published | 31.7% | 20.6%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 67% | 4.9% | 0.2% | Not yet published | 50% | 62.1% | Not yet published | 58.3% | 43%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Qwen3.8 27B | 5.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 46.6% | Not yet published | 90.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond | 33.9% | 48.2% | 84.3%Reported by AlibabaOSWorld-Verified | 82% | 76.3% | 17.3% | Not yet published | 79.5%Reported by AlibabaIFBench |
| ||||||||||||
| Qwen3.8 Max | 38.9% | 52.1% | 65.6% | 92.3% | 43.1% | 56.2% | Not yet published | 80.3% | 82.8% | 29.5% | 65.3% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| MiMo-V2.6-Pro | 31.3% | 60.9% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 49.4% | 58.6% | 82%Reported by XiaomiOSWorld-Verified | 86.3% | Not yet published | 34.8% | 66.5% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| MiMo-V2.6-Flash | 24.2% | 51.3% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 35.1% | 64.1% | 80.8%Reported by XiaomiOSWorld-Verified | 74.3% | 73.1% | 27.2% | 66.9% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Ling 3.1 Flash | 32.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0 | 56.8% | Not yet published | Not yet published | 43.5% | 67.5% | Not yet published | 82.3% | Not yet published | 26.5% | Not yet published | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
| Step 5 Preview | 31.8% | 58.9% | Not yet published | 93.5%Reported by StepFunGPQA Diamond | 46.5% | 51% | Not yet published | 88.3% | 76.4% | 36.4% | 59.7% | Not yet published |
| ||||||||||||
Agentic codingTerminal-Bench 4.0
- Claude Opus 5.565.2%
- Claude Sonnet 5.564.1%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro63.6%
- GPT-6 Astra59.6%
- Claude Fable 5.158.1%
- Gemini 4 Argon57.6%
- GPT-6.1 Sol55.1%
- Claude Opus 553.5%
- GPT-6.1 Terra49.5%
- Muse Wonder49.5%
- GPT-6 Sol44.4%
- Claude Fable 541.4%
- GLM-5.338.9%
- Qwen3.8 Max38.9%
- GPT-5.6 Sol37.9%
- GLM-5.3-Flash37.4%
- Claude Haiku 5.536.4%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash31.8%
- Step 5 Preview31.8%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro31.3%
- Grok 4.728.8%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash25.3%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash24.2%
- Claude Opus 4.823.2%
- GPT-5.6 Terra22.7%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash19.7%
- Kimi K317.2%
- Grok 4.617.2%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro14.1%
- GPT-6 Luna13.6%
- GPT-5.6 Luna11.6%
- Claude Sonnet 510.6%
- Muse Spark 1.310.6%
- Grok 4.58.6%
- Muse Spark Open6.6%
- Mercury 33%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview2.5%
- Ling 3.1 Flash32.8%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Mistral Large 424.7%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- GPT-5.514.6%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- gpt-oss-120b14.2%Terminal-Bench's run, Terminal-Bench 2.0
- Gemini 3.6 Flash7.1%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Qwen3.8 27B5.6%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Claude Sonnet 4.63%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Kimi K2.7 Code1%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- GLM-5.21%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
- Mistral Medium 3.50%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
The other models in the grid have no result on Terminal-Bench 4.0 yet.
CodeSciCode
- Claude Opus 5.566.9%
- Claude Fable 5.163.1%
- Gemini 4 Argon61.8%
- Claude Sonnet 5.561%
- Claude Fable 561%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro60.9%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro60.8%
- Muse Wonder60.3%
- Kimi K359.5%
- GLM-5.359%
- Step 5 Preview58.9%
- Muse Spark 1.358.8%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview58.7%
- Muse Spark Open58.4%
- GPT-6 Sol57.6%
- Grok 4.757.4%
- GPT-5.6 Sol57.1%
- Ling 3.1 Flash56.8%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash56.6%
- GPT-6 Astra56.5%
- Grok 4.656.5%
- Claude Opus 556.4%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash55.9%
- GPT-5.555.8%
- GPT-6.1 Terra55.1%
- Claude Haiku 5.555%
- GPT-5.6 Terra55%
- Grok 4.555%
- GPT-6 Luna54.6%
- Claude Opus 4.754.5%
- Claude Opus 4.854.4%
- Claude Sonnet 554.3%
- GPT-6.1 Sol54.2%
- GPT-5.6 Luna53.6%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash53.4%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash53.4%
- Qwen3.8 Max52.1%
- GLM-5.3-Flash51.6%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash51.3%
- GLM-5.251.2%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro51%
- Claude Sonnet 4.650.1%
- Kimi K2.7 Code47.8%
- Qwen3.8 27B46.6%
- Claude Sonnet 4.545.7%
- Gemma 4 31B45.5%
- Claude Haiku 4.542.2%
- Mistral Medium 3.540.2%
- gpt-oss-120b34%
- Llama 4 Maverick31.7%
- Llama 4 Scout21.3%
The other models in the grid have no result on SciCode yet.
MathFrontierMath Tiers 1-3
- GPT-6.1 Sol93.7%
- GPT-6 Astra93.7%
- Claude Opus 5.591.2%
- GPT-6.1 Terra90.9%
- Claude Fable 5.190.2%
- GPT-6 Sol89.8%
- GPT-5.6 Sol89.1%
- Claude Sonnet 5.588.8%
- Claude Fable 587%
- GPT-5.6 Terra86%
- Gemini 4 Argon86%
- Claude Opus 585.6%
- GPT-5.585.3%
- GPT-5.6 Luna82.1%
- Muse Wonder82.1%
- Claude Opus 4.880%
- GPT-6 Luna78.9%
- GPT-5.478.6%
- Claude Haiku 5.575.1%
- Muse Spark 1.374%
- Kimi K372.2%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash71.2%
- Claude Opus 4.770.2%
- Muse Spark Open69.8%
- GLM-5.368.8%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash68.4%
- Claude Opus 4.666%
- Grok 4.666%
- Claude Sonnet 565.6%
- Qwen3.8 Max65.6%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro64.6%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview59.6%
- GLM-5.259.2%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash58.9%
- Grok 4.557.2%
- GLM-5.3-Flash55.8%
- Kimi K2.7 Code54%
- Grok 4.753%
- Claude Opus 4.534.4%
- Claude Sonnet 4.523.9%
- gpt-oss-120b88.9%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
- Claude Sonnet 4.671.1%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
- Claude Haiku 4.566.7%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
- Llama 4 Maverick20.6%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
- Llama 4 Scout7.8%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
The other models in the grid have no result on FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 yet.
ScienceGPQA Diamond
- Gemini 4 Argon96.4%
- GPT-6 Astra95.8%
- Claude Sonnet 5.595.6%
- GPT-6.1 Sol95.4%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash95.4%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview94.4%
- GPT-6.1 Terra94.3%
- GPT-6 Sol94.3%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash94.1%
- Claude Opus 593.9%
- GPT-5.6 Sol93.5%
- Grok 4.593.4%
- GPT-5.6 Terra93.3%
- GPT-5.493.3%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash93.2%
- Grok 4.693.2%
- Kimi K393.1%
- Grok 4.792.7%
- Qwen3.8 Max92.3%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro91.7%
- GPT-5.6 Luna91.6%
- Claude Opus 4.891%
- GLM-5.390.9%
- Claude Opus 5.590.6%
- GPT-6 Luna90.5%
- GLM-5.3-Flash90.2%
- Claude Haiku 5.589.6%
- Muse Spark Open88.6%
- Claude Opus 4.688.4%
- Kimi K2.7 Code87.9%
- Claude Opus 4.786.4%
- Claude Opus 4.586%
- Claude Fable 585.9%
- Claude Sonnet 4.582.3%
- Claude Sonnet 580.3%
- Claude Sonnet 4.678.8%
- gpt-oss-120b75.8%
- Claude Haiku 4.571.2%
- Llama 4 Maverick67%
- Llama 4 Scout51.8%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro94.2%Moonshot AI's own figure
- GPT-5.593.5%Artificial Analysis's run
- Muse Spark 1.393.5%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
- Step 5 Preview93.5%StepFun's own figure, GPQA Diamond
- Claude Fable 5.193.4%Vals.ai's run
- GPT-5.3-Codex91.5%Artificial Analysis's run
- Qwen3.8 27B90.5%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
- Gemma 4 31B85.7%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
- Mistral Medium 3.574.8%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
The other models in the grid have no result on GPQA Diamond yet.
Hard reasoningHumanity's Last Exam
- Claude Opus 5.561.4%
- Claude Fable 5.159.1%
- Gemini 4 Argon57.1%
- Claude Fable 555.5%
- Claude Sonnet 5.555%
- Claude Opus 554.9%
- GPT-6 Astra54.7%
- GPT-6.1 Sol52.9%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro52.5%
- Muse Wonder50.1%
- GPT-5.6 Sol49.5%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro49.4%
- Claude Opus 4.848.7%
- Muse Spark 1.348.7%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash48%
- GPT-6 Sol47.9%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash47.8%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview47%
- Kimi K346.9%
- Step 5 Preview46.5%
- GPT-6.1 Terra46.2%
- GPT-5.545.8%
- Claude Haiku 5.544.4%
- Muse Spark Open43.9%
- GPT-5.443.7%
- Ling 3.1 Flash43.5%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash43.3%
- Grok 4.743.1%
- Qwen3.8 Max43.1%
- GPT-5.6 Terra42.9%
- Grok 4.642.9%
- Grok 4.542.7%
- GPT-5.3-Codex42.5%
- Claude Opus 4.742.3%
- GLM-5.342.3%
- Claude Sonnet 541.3%
- GLM-5.241.1%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro41%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash40.8%
- Claude Opus 4.639.9%
- GLM-5.3-Flash39.9%
- GPT-5.6 Luna39.5%
- GPT-6 Luna38.5%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash35.1%
- Kimi K2.7 Code35%
- Qwen3.8 27B33.9%
- Claude Sonnet 4.633.6%
- Claude Opus 4.530.1%
- Gemma 4 31B23.6%
- gpt-oss-120b19.6%
- Claude Sonnet 4.517.8%
- Mistral Medium 3.513.8%
- Claude Haiku 4.510.4%
- Llama 4 Maverick4.9%
- Llama 4 Scout3.8%
The other models in the grid have no result on Humanity's Last Exam yet.
Tool useAutomationBench-AA
- Gemini 4 Argon77.5%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro73.3%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash72.5%
- Claude Sonnet 5.571.8%
- Claude Opus 5.569.5%
- GPT-6 Astra68.5%
- Muse Wonder68.1%
- Ling 3.1 Flash67.5%
- Grok 4.666.7%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash66.6%
- Grok 4.765.6%
- GPT-6.1 Sol64.9%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash64.1%
- GLM-5.362.2%
- GPT-6 Sol61.6%
- GLM-5.3-Flash60.4%
- GPT-6.1 Terra60.2%
- GPT-5.6 Sol60.1%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash59.9%
- GPT-5.6 Terra59.6%
- Claude Fable 5.159.4%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro58.6%
- Kimi K358.3%
- Grok 4.557.9%
- Muse Spark 1.357.9%
- Mistral Large 457.8%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro56.7%
- Claude Opus 556.6%
- Qwen3.8 Max56.2%
- Claude Fable 554.1%
- GPT-6 Luna53.2%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash53%
- Step 5 Preview51%
- GPT-5.6 Luna50.2%
- Muse Spark Open49.7%
- Qwen3.8 27B48.2%
- GPT-5.547.3%
- Claude Opus 4.845.6%
- Claude Sonnet 536.5%
- Claude Haiku 5.535.4%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview35.4%
- GLM-5.228.4%
- Kimi K2.7 Code24.5%
- Claude Sonnet 4.620.1%
- Claude Sonnet 4.514.1%
- Mistral Medium 3.56.3%
- Gemma 4 31B4.9%
- Claude Haiku 4.53.2%
- gpt-oss-120b0.2%
- Llama 4 Scout0.2%
- Llama 4 Maverick0.2%
The other models in the grid have no result on AutomationBench-AA yet.
Computer useOSWorld 2.1
- Claude Opus 577.7%
- Muse Spark 1.369.6%
- Qwen3.8 27B84.3%Alibaba's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- Gemini 3.6 Flash83%Google's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro82%Xiaomi's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- Claude Opus 5.581.8%Anthropic's own figure
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash80.8%Xiaomi's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- Claude Fable 5.180.7%Anthropic's own figure
- Muse Spark Open80.4%Meta's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
- Claude Sonnet 5.580.1%Anthropic's own figure
- Kimi K3.1 Pro79.6%Moonshot AI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
- GPT-6.1 Sol78%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
- GPT-6 Astra75.8%Meta's run
- GPT-6.1 Terra74.2%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
- Muse Wonder72.6%Meta's own figure
- Claude Haiku 5.572.4%Anthropic's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash69.3%Moonshot AI's run, OSWorld 2.1
- Gemini 4 Argon69.2%Google's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- GPT-6 Sol64.4%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- GPT-5.6 Sol62.7%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash61.7%MiniMax's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- GLM-5.3-Flash59.1%Z.ai's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- Gemini 3.8 Flash59%Google's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
- Claude Sonnet 557%Anthropic's own figure
- Claude Opus 4.854.8%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
- GPT-5.549.5%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
- Claude Opus 4.748.9%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
- GPT-6 Luna48.9%Anthropic's run, OSWorld 2.1
- Claude Sonnet 4.641.5%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
The other models in the grid have no result on OSWorld 2.1 yet.
Long contextAA-LCR v1.1
- Kimi K388.7%
- Step 5 Preview88.3%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro86.3%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro86.3%
- Claude Fable 5.185.3%
- Claude Opus 5.584.7%
- GPT-5.584.3%
- GPT-5.6 Sol84%
- GPT-5.6 Luna83.7%
- GPT-6 Sol83.7%
- GPT-6 Luna83.3%
- GPT-5.3-Codex83.3%
- GPT-6.1 Sol83%
- GPT-5.6 Terra83%
- Muse Spark 1.383%
- Claude Haiku 5.582.7%
- Claude Sonnet 5.582.7%
- GPT-6.1 Terra82.7%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash82.7%
- Claude Fable 582.3%
- Ling 3.1 Flash82.3%
- Claude Sonnet 582%
- GPT-5.482%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview82%
- Qwen3.8 27B82%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash81.3%
- GPT-6 Astra80.7%
- Muse Wonder80.7%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro80.3%
- Grok 4.680.3%
- Qwen3.8 Max80.3%
- Claude Sonnet 4.680%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash80%
- GLM-5.3-Flash80%
- Gemini 4 Argon79.7%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash79.7%
- GLM-5.379.7%
- Claude Opus 579.3%
- Kimi K2.7 Code79.3%
- Grok 4.579.3%
- Claude Opus 4.778.7%
- GLM-5.278.3%
- Muse Spark Open78.3%
- Claude Opus 4.678%
- Claude Opus 4.877.7%
- Claude Opus 4.577.3%
- Grok 4.776.7%
- Claude Haiku 4.574.3%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash74.3%
- Claude Sonnet 4.572.3%
- Gemma 4 31B69.7%
- Mistral Medium 3.569.3%
- gpt-oss-120b52%
- Llama 4 Maverick50%
- Llama 4 Scout27.7%
The other models in the grid have no result on AA-LCR v1.1 yet.
MultimodalMMMU-Pro
- Claude Opus 5.587.7%
- GPT-6 Astra86.9%
- GPT-6.1 Sol86%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash85.6%
- Claude Opus 584.7%
- GPT-6.1 Terra84.7%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro83.9%
- GPT-5.6 Sol83.4%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash83.2%
- GPT-6 Sol82.9%
- Qwen3.8 Max82.8%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview82.4%
- Muse Spark 1.382%
- Muse Spark Open80.9%
- GPT-5.6 Terra80.7%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash80.6%
- Kimi K380.5%
- Grok 4.580.4%
- GPT-5.579.9%
- GPT-6 Luna79.7%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash79.1%
- Claude Opus 4.778.8%
- GPT-5.6 Luna78.6%
- GPT-5.3-Codex78.5%
- GPT-5.478.4%
- Claude Sonnet 577.3%
- Step 5 Preview76.4%
- Qwen3.8 27B76.3%
- Claude Opus 4.675.4%
- Claude Opus 4.574%
- Gemma 4 31B73.4%
- Claude Sonnet 4.673.3%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash73.1%
- Claude Sonnet 4.568.7%
- Mistral Medium 3.564.9%
- Llama 4 Maverick62.1%
- Claude Haiku 4.558.6%
- Llama 4 Scout52.9%
- Claude Fable 5.186.3%Moonshot AI's run
- GLM-5.3-Flash86%Vals.ai's run, MMMU-Pro
The other models in the grid have no result on MMMU-Pro yet.
FactualityAA-Omniscience Accuracy
- Claude Fable 5.168.4%
- Claude Opus 5.565.5%
- Claude Fable 565.4%
- GPT-6.1 Sol61.8%
- GPT-6 Astra61.6%
- Claude Opus 560.9%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview54.9%
- GPT-6 Sol54.5%
- Claude Sonnet 5.551.5%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash50.5%
- Claude Opus 4.748.9%
- Kimi K3.1 Pro48.9%
- Claude Opus 4.848.8%
- Gemini 4 Argon48.3%
- GPT-6.1 Terra47.6%
- Claude Opus 4.647%
- Claude Opus 4.546.6%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro45.2%
- MiniMax M3.1 Flash45.1%
- Grok 4.742.7%
- GPT-5.6 Terra42.3%
- Muse Spark Open42%
- Claude Sonnet 4.640.9%
- Claude Sonnet 540.1%
- GPT-6 Luna39.6%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash39.6%
- Muse Wonder38%
- Muse Spark 1.338%
- Step 5 Preview36.4%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro34.8%
- Claude Haiku 5.534.7%
- Claude Sonnet 4.532.9%
- GLM-5.332.3%
- Qwen3.8 Max29.5%
- GLM-5.3-Flash28.2%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash27.2%
- Ling 3.1 Flash26.5%
- Mistral Large 426%
- Mistral Medium 3.523%
- Claude Haiku 4.518%
- Qwen3.8 27B17.3%
- GPT-5.6 Sol69.7%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Gemini 3.6 Flash66.2%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- GPT-5.563%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Kimi K350.6%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Grok 4.648.9%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Grok 4.548.3%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- GPT-5.6 Luna41%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- Kimi K2.7 Code36.5%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- GLM-5.234.2%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
- gpt-oss-120b16.8%OpenAI's own figure, SimpleQA
- Gemma 4 31B10.4%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
The other models in the grid have no result on AA-Omniscience Accuracy yet.
Answers in fullSpeechMap
- Grok 4.593.1%
- Gemini 3.6 Flash87.2%
- Gemini 4 Argon87%
- Gemini 3.8 Flash86.1%
- Grok 4.683.6%
- Claude Opus 5.582.8%
- Gemma 4 31B82.3%
- Claude Sonnet 5.581.6%
- Claude Haiku 5.578.8%
- Claude Opus 573.7%
- Claude Fable 5.172.4%
- DeepSeek V4 Pro72%
- GLM-5.371.5%
- Mistral Medium 3.570.5%
- Claude Opus 4.770.2%
- Llama 4 Scout70.1%
- GPT-6.1 Sol69.5%
- GPT-6 Astra68.2%
- Claude Opus 4.867.4%
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash66.9%
- MiMo-V2.6-Pro66.5%
- Kimi K365.9%
- GLM-5.3-Flash65.4%
- Qwen3.8 Max65.3%
- Claude Fable 564.8%
- Grok 4.764.1%
- GPT-6 Sol64%
- GPT-6 Luna63.4%
- Claude Opus 4.659.9%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview59.9%
- Step 5 Preview59.7%
- Llama 4 Maverick58.3%
- Claude Opus 4.557.5%
- Muse Wonder42.7%
- gpt-oss-120b36.3%
- Claude Sonnet 4.635.8%
- Claude Sonnet 4.531.4%
- Muse Spark 1.325.8%
- Claude Haiku 4.524.7%
The other models in the grid have no result on SpeechMap yet.
Instruction followingMultiChallenge
- GPT-6.1 Sol82%
- Gemini 4 Argon78.7%
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash74.9%
- GPT-6.1 Terra74.2%
- Muse Spark Open74.2%
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview71.4%
- Claude Haiku 5.567.7%
- Claude Opus 4.559%
- Claude Sonnet 4.555.3%
- Claude Haiku 4.550.5%
- gpt-oss-120b45.3%
- Claude Opus 4.637.2%
- Qwen3.8 27B79.5%Alibaba's own figure, IFBench
- GPT-5.575.9%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Gemma 4 31B75.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GPT-5.3-Codex75.4%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GPT-5.473.9%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GLM-5.273.3%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GPT-5.6 Sol72.7%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- GPT-5.6 Terra71.2%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Mistral Medium 3.568.8%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Claude Fable 563.5%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Kimi K2.7 Code63.1%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Claude Opus 4.862.2%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Claude Opus 4.758.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Claude Sonnet 4.656.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Llama 4 Maverick43%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
- Llama 4 Scout39.5%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
The other models in the grid have no result on MultiChallenge yet.
Every measure on record
Cost, speed, reliability, knowledge-work and domain results for Claude Opus 4.8 beyond the twelve chart axes, each with the run it comes from and its publisher. These stay separate measures; none is folded into the chart.
| Measure | Claude Opus 4.8 | Run | Source | Read |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specs and access | ||||
| Context windowThe most tokens one request can hold, as the maker states it. Size alone says nothing about how well the model uses a long input; the Long context axis measures that. | 1M | Anthropic's pricing page: Claude 4.6 and later models, except Claude Haiku 5.5, include the full 1M token context window | Anthropic | Oct 28, 2026 |
| ReadsThe kinds of input the model accepts. | Text, Images | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 | |
| LicenceThe terms the weights or the service are offered under. | Commercial Terms of Service | Anthropic | Nov 1, 2026 | |
| Open weightsWhether the maker publishes the weights for anyone to run. | No | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 | |
| Routes offering itOf the 19 clouds, gateways and coding products GILD tracks, how many offer the release today, preview included. | 14 of 19 | GILD route matrix | Oct 28, 2026 | |
| Cost | ||||
| Answer tokens per taskLower is better. Answer tokens per Intelligence Index task, reasoning excluded. | 18,734 | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Cost per task, cache readsLower is better. The cache-read share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task. | $1.60 | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Cost per task, cache writesLower is better. The cache-write share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task. | $0.58 | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Cost per task, inputLower is better. The input-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task. | $2.32 | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Cost per task, outputLower is better. The answer-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task. | $1.76 | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Cost per task, reasoningLower is better. The reasoning-token share of AA's cost per Intelligence Index task. | $1.30 | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Cost per taskLower is better. What one Intelligence Index task cost AA at list price, input, cache, output and reasoning tokens together. | $4.08 | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Cost to run the indexLower is better. What the whole Intelligence Index run cost AA at list price. The runs cost from tens of dollars to about $13,000, so the axis is log from $10 to $100,000. | $6,874 | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Output tokens per taskLower is better. Tokens the model wrote per Intelligence Index task, reasoning included: how verbose it is. | 70,550 | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Reasoning tokens per taskLower is better. Reasoning tokens per Intelligence Index task. | 51,815 | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Speed | ||||
| End-to-end response timeLower is better. Seconds AA measures for a whole response on its standard prompt. | 49 s | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Time to first answer tokenLower is better. Seconds until the first answer token, after any reasoning, on AA's API runs. | 40 s | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Output speedMedian output tokens per second on AA's API runs, with the 5th and 95th percentile when AA prints them. | 60 tokens/s | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Time per taskLower is better. Wall-clock seconds per Intelligence Index task. Runs take from about 15 s to about 33 min, so the axis is log from 1 s to 10,000 s. | 712 s | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Time to first tokenLower is better. Median seconds to the first streamed chunk on AA's API runs, with the 5th and 95th percentile when AA prints them. Reasoning models spend this time thinking. | 40 s | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Reliability | ||||
| Hallucination rateLower is better. AA-Omniscience hallucination rate shows how often the model answers wrongly when it does not know and should decline. | 39.3% | Max effort | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Omniscience accuracyShare of AA-Omniscience knowledge questions answered correctly. | 48.8% | Max effort | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Omniscience indexAA-Omniscience index: correct answers minus wrong answers, declines neutral, -100 to 100. | 28.8 | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| SimpleQA Verified (Epoch)Share of SimpleQA Verified factual questions answered correctly, best scorer, Epoch AI's run. A second factuality source beside AA-Omniscience. | 53% | Max effort | Epoch AI | Aug 27, 2026 |
| Knowledge work | ||||
| AA-BriefcaseAA-Briefcase overall Elo for long business deliverables, with AA's 95% interval. | 1,319 | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| AnalystAgent (AA run)AA's AnalystAgent score for analyst workflows. | 45% | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| APEX-Agents (maintainers)APEX-Agents pass@1 from the maintainers, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 48.9% | Max effort | Mercor (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| GDP-PDF (AA run)Share of GDP-PDF document tasks where every check passes. | 22.8% | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| GDPval-AAGDPval-AA Elo: AA's run of economically valuable knowledge-work tasks, graded pairwise, with AA's interval. | 1,454 | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| MLCR (AA run)AA's MLCR overall score for long, multi-document reading. | 19.4% | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Vending-Bench 2Vending-Bench 2 final balance of a simulated vending business run by the model, as Epoch AI republishes it. | $2,992 | Max effort | Andon Labs (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Capability beyond the chart | ||||
| AA-LCRAA long-context reasoning accuracy. | 77.7% | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| ALE-BenchALE-Bench performance rating on long optimization contests, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 1,564 | High effort | Sakana AI (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| ARC-AGI-2ARC-AGI-2 score from the ARC Prize maintainers, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 72.1% | High effort | ARC Prize Foundation (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Chess puzzles (Epoch)Share of chess puzzles solved, Epoch AI's run. | 52% | Max effort | Epoch AI | Oct 13, 2026 |
| CritPt (AA run)Share of CritPt research-level physics problems solved in AA's run. | 20.9% | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| DeepSWEDeepSWE pass@1, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 59.0% | Max effort | Datacurve (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| DTBenchDTBench accuracy, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 94.9% | Max effort | Redwood Research (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| EnterpriseOps-Gym (AA run)AA's EnterpriseOps-Gym score for enterprise operations agents. | 44.0% | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Epoch Capabilities IndexEpoch Capabilities Index: Epoch AI's composite across its benchmark hub, with its confidence interval. | 159 | Claude Opus 4.8 | Epoch AI | Oct 26, 2026 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (Epoch)Share of FrontierMath Tier 4 research math problems solved, Epoch AI's run. | 56.1% | Max effort | Epoch AI | Jun 10, 2026 |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1 to 3 (Epoch)Share of FrontierMath Tiers 1 to 3 problems solved, Epoch AI's run. | 80% | Max effort | Epoch AI | Jun 10, 2026 |
| GPQA Diamond (AA run)GPQA Diamond accuracy in AA's run. | 92.0% | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch)GPQA Diamond accuracy, best scorer, Epoch AI's run. | 91.0% | Max effort | Epoch AI | Jun 7, 2026 |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA run)Share of Humanity's Last Exam questions answered correctly in AA's run. | 48.7% | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| IFBench (AA run)Instruction-following accuracy on IFBench in AA's run. | 62.2% | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Intelligence IndexArtificial Analysis Intelligence Index: AA's composite of its own evaluation runs, 0 to 100 points. | 41.8 | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| LMCALMCA score, 0 to 100, as Epoch AI republishes it. Its interval is printed only as a half-width, so it is not drawn. | 57.5 | Max effort | Redwood Research (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Mystery game puzzles (Epoch)Share of mystery game puzzles solved, Epoch AI's run. | 36% | Max effort | Epoch AI | Jul 25, 2026 |
| OTIS Mock AIME (Epoch)Share of OTIS Mock AIME 2024 to 2025 problems solved, Epoch AI's run. | 98.3% | Max effort | Epoch AI | Jun 7, 2026 |
| ProofBenchShare of ProofBench proofs graded correct, from Vals AI as Epoch AI republishes it. | 69% | Max effort | Vals AI (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| SciCode (AA run)SciCode subproblem accuracy in AA's run. | 54.4% | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| tau-Banking (AA run)AA's tau-Banking tool-use score. | 34.2% | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| tau2-Bench (AA run)AA's tau2-Bench tool-use score. | 94.4% | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA run)Share of Terminal-Bench 4.0 tasks solved in AA's own harness. | 21.7% | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| WebDev ArenaWebDev Arena score from human pairwise votes on web builds, with its 95% interval, as Epoch AI republishes it. | 1,559 | High effort | LMArena (via Epoch AI) | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Domains | ||||
| EconomicsArtificial Analysis capability score for economics questions, 0 to 100 points. | 53.8 | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| EngineeringArtificial Analysis capability score for engineering questions, 0 to 100 points. | 43.5 | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Finance and accountingArtificial Analysis capability score for finance and accounting questions, 0 to 100 points. | 46 | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Healthcare and medicalArtificial Analysis capability score for healthcare and medical questions, 0 to 100 points. | 41.3 | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| LegalArtificial Analysis capability score for legal questions, 0 to 100 points. | 47.9 | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
| Strategy and operationsArtificial Analysis capability score for strategy and operations questions, 0 to 100 points. | 44.1 | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Artificial Analysis | Oct 26, 2026 |
Routes, prices and uptime
Where Claude Opus 4.8 is offered, what each route charges, and how each endpoint is holding up.
Where it is offered
14 of 19 routes GILD tracks offer Claude Opus 4.8 today, preview included. Read Oct 28, 2026 from each route's own pages.
| Route | Status | Model ID | Limits and lifecycle | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amazon Bedrock | Available | anthropic.claude-opus-4-8 | us./eu./jp./au./us-gov./global. profiles; Active, EOL not sooner than May 28, 2027; tiers: Standard only; context / output 1M / 128K | Amazon Web Services, Models at a glanceAmazon Web Services, Claude Opus 4.8 |
| Claude Code | Available | claude-opus-4-8 | By full model name on the Anthropic API, or provider ARN, version or deployment name; aliases resolve per provider; a pinned Opus 4.8 ID runs with its native 1M window without the [1m] suffix (page read Oct 28, 2026) | Anthropic |
| Claude on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed) | Available | claude-opus-4-8 | Claude API model IDs (dated IDs use a hyphen) | Anthropic, Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic, Claude Models on Google Cloud (Anthropic managed) |
| Claude Platform on AWS | Available | claude-opus-4-8 | Same ID as the Claude API | Anthropic |
| Cursor | Available | available, hidden by default (fast as claude-opus-4-8-fast); Premium plan or higher, API list price | Anysphere (Cursor) | |
| Databricks | Available | databricks-claude-opus-4-8 | available | Databricks, Databricks-hosted inferenceDatabricks, Detailed list of models supported by Databricks Foundation Model APIs |
| The maker's own API | Available | claude-opus-4-8 | context / max output 1M / 128K; status per deprecations table; fast mode research preview at US$10/US$50 with beta header | Anthropic, Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic, Model deprecationsAnthropic, Fast mode |
| GitHub Copilot | Available | not statedpicker label Claude Opus 4.8 | available (GA), fast mode in preview | GitHub |
| GitHub Models | Retired | not applicableservice retired | service retired July 30, 2026 | GitHub, GitHub Models |
| Google Cloud Vertex / Agent Platform (Google managed) | Available | claude-opus-4-8 (GA) | retirement not sooner than May 28, 2027; input / output 1,000,000 / 128,000 | Google, Anthropic's Claude on Google Cloud modelsGoogle, Anthropic's Claude Opus 4.8 on Google CloudAnthropic |
| Microsoft Foundry | Available | claude-opus-4-8 | deployment name defaults to model ID; hosted on Azure and Anthropic; context 1M; no Message Batches API | AnthropicMicrosoft Learn |
| OpenCode | Available | claude-opus-4-8 | OpenCode Zen gateway, Anthropic Messages endpoint | Anomaly (OpenCode), ModelsOpenCode (Anomaly) |
| OpenRouter | Available | anthropic/claude-opus-4.8 | context / max completion 1,000,000 / 128,000 | OpenRouter |
| Snowflake Cortex | Available | claude-opus-4-8 | Regions: Cross Cloud (Any Region); AWS US (Cross-Region); AWS EU (Cross-Region); AWS AU (Cross-Region). Context 1,000,000; maximum output 128,000 tokens. | Snowflake |
| Windsurf / Devin | Available | claude-opus-4-8-highclaude-opus-4-8-high-fastclaude-opus-4-8-lowclaude-opus-4-8-low-fastclaude-opus-4-8-maxclaude-opus-4-8-max-fastclaude-opus-4-8-mediumclaude-opus-4-8-medium-fastclaude-opus-4-8-xhighclaude-opus-4-8-xhigh-fast | available (plus Fast variants) | Cognition (Devin, formerly Windsurf), AI ModelsCognition (Devin, formerly Windsurf), Compliance and Availability |
Not offered on 1 route: Antigravity.
3 routes do not say: Codex, Gemini CLI and Grok Build.
What each of these 4 routes' pages say, with sources
| Route | Status | Model ID | Limits and lifecycle | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antigravity | Not offered | not listed; Gemini CLI serves Gemini models only | ||
| Codex | Not stated | Codex model docs list OpenAI models only | ||
| Gemini CLI | Not stated | Region, tier and limits not stated on the route's pages. | ||
| Grok Build | Not stated | Grok Build pages name only grok-4.7 | xAI (SpaceXSI) |
Prices by route
The lowest standard rate is Claude API, at $5 / $25 per million input and output tokens. US dollars per million tokens, as each route lists them, one row per route and rate plan, cheapest standard rate first after the maker's own; a blended rate states its mix.
| Route | Standard, in / out | Cache read | Other rates | Source, or uptime (1 day / 30 min) and limits |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude APIMakerLowest | $5 / $25 | Fast mode $10 / $50, fast mode, research preview | Anthropic, Oct 26, 2026Anthropic, Oct 28, 2026 | |
| Artificial Analysis price record | $5 / $25 | $0.5 | Blended $10, 3 input : 1 output, no cacheBlended $3.85, 7 cache-hit : 2 input : 1 outputCache write $6.25 | Artificial Analysis, Oct 26, 2026 |
Lineup
Anthropic's 14 releases in 4 families, oldest to newest along each tier, with list price and speed. Claude Opus 4.8 is lit.
CurrentLegacyThis model
Price is the list price per 1M tokens, input / output. Speed is median output tokens per second. Bars share one scale across the lineup. Read between Oct 26, 2026 and Oct 28, 2026.
Claude Haiku
Anthropic's small, fast Claude model family for high-volume, latency-sensitive work.
2 releases
Claude Sonnet
Anthropic's balanced Claude model family.
4 releases
Claude Opus
Anthropic's high-capability Claude model family.
6 releases
- 4.5Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$5 / $25Speed58.8 tok/s
- 4.6Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$5 / $25Speed47.7 tok/s
- 4.7Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$5 / $25Speed54.7 tok/s
- This page4.8Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$5 / $25Speed65.9 tok/s
- 5Legacy. In 4 products we coverPrice$5 / $25Speed53.3 tok/s
- 5.5Current. In 9 products we coverPrice$4 / $20Speed98.4 tok/s
Claude Fable
Anthropic's Claude family for demanding reasoning and long-horizon agentic work.
2 releases
Products
We cover 4 products that offer Claude Opus 4.8 today: 3 subscriptions and 1 API.
Through a subscription
- OpenCode+27 PositiveOpen-source, MIT-licensed coding agent that edits code and runs commands from a terminal UI, desktop app, web client, or editor extension.
- Claude Code+75 Strong positiveAnthropic's agentic coding product for terminal and IDE workflows.
- Cursor+11 MixedAI coding agent and code editor for writing, reviewing, and shipping software, with agents in the editor, the terminal, and the cloud.
Through an API
Comparisons
GILD comparisons that name Claude Opus 4.8, then those of the clouds and APIs that serve it.
- Amazon Bedrock vs Claude API: Buying Claude Through AWS or From AnthropicCompares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.8
- Amazon Bedrock vs Microsoft Foundry: Which Cloud AI Platform Fits Your Stack?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.8
- Claude API vs Gemini API: Which Model Platform Fits Your Workloads?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.8
- Claude API vs OpenAI API: Top Scores or Lower Cost per Task?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.8
- DeepSeek API vs Claude API: Price per Task or Controls and Residency?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.8
- DeepSeek API vs OpenRouter: Buy DeepSeek From DeepSeek, or From Another Host?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.8
- Gemini API vs Amazon Bedrock: One Model Family or a Model Marketplace?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.8
- Gemini API vs Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform: Which Route to Gemini?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.8
- Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform vs Microsoft Foundry: Google Cloud or Azure for Models and AgentsCompares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.8
- LiteLLM vs OpenRouter: Run Your Own Gateway or Rent One?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.8
- OpenRouter vs Portkey: Rent Model Access or Run a Governed Gateway?Compares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.8
- Together AI vs OpenRouter: One Open-Model Host or a Router Across HostsCompares routes that serve Claude Opus 4.8
What practitioners report
Strongest on Quality and reasoning, weakest on Reliability.
Each figure is the share of accounts naming Claude Opus 4.8 that speak well of it on that axis. An axis is scored once praise and concerns are both on record from at least five accounts by three authors. An account from the maker, a company that sells or serves the model, or the maker's expert program is listed and counts toward no figure.
| Axis | Favorable | Accounts |
|---|---|---|
| Quality and reasoningWhether its answers and code are right on the author's own task: reasoning, accuracy, instruction following, and consistency. | 68% | 17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors |
| Tool use and structured outputWhether it calls tools correctly, returns valid structured output, and keeps agent loops on track. | 50% | 4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors |
| Long contextHow it holds up over long documents, large codebases, long sessions, and many images or PDFs. | 60% | 6 favorable, 4 not, 10 authors |
| Developer experienceHow it is to build with: prompting, steering, effort settings, and support across SDKs and providers. | 53% | 10 favorable, 9 not, 19 authors |
| CostWhat the work costs: price per task, token use, and what caching and batch save. | 40% | 6 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors |
| SpeedResponse time, time to first token, and throughput. | 31% | 4 favorable, 9 not, 13 authors |
| ReliabilityWhether requests keep succeeding: overloaded errors, outages, rate limits, and changes that broke what worked. | 17% | 2 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors |
Every model on these seven axes
| Axis | Claude Opus 4.8 | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Claude Opus 5.5 | Claude Fable 5.1 | Claude Opus 5 | Claude Sonnet 5 | Claude Fable 5 | Claude Opus 4.7 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Claude Opus 4.6 | Claude Opus 4.5 | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | GPT-6.1 Terra | GPT-6.1 Sol | GPT-6 Luna | GPT-6 Astra | GPT-5.6 Sol | GPT-5.6 Terra | GPT-5.6 Luna | GPT-5.5 | GPT-5.4 | gpt-oss-120b | GPT-6 Sol | GPT-5.3-Codex | Gemini 4 Argon | Gemini 3.8 Flash | Gemma 4 31B | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Gemini 3.6 Flash | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash | DeepSeek V4 Pro | Kimi K3.1 Pro | Kimi K3 | Kimi K2.7 Code | Mistral Large 4 | Mistral Medium 3.5 | Grok 4.7 | Grok 4.6 | Grok 4.5 | MiniMax M3.1 Flash | Mercury 3 | GLM-5.3-Flash | GLM-5.3 | GLM-5.2 | Muse Spark Open | Muse Wonder | Muse Spark 1.3 | Llama 4 Scout | Llama 4 Maverick | Qwen3.8 27B | Qwen3.8 Max | MiMo-V2.6-Pro | MiMo-V2.6-Flash | Ling 3.1 Flash | Step 5 Preview |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality and reasoning | 68%17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors | 73%19 favorable, 7 not, 26 authors | 64%14 favorable, 8 not, 22 authors | 68%17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors | 54%15 favorable, 13 not, 28 authors | 50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors | 56%9 favorable, 7 not, 16 authors | 68%13 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors | 57%12 favorable, 9 not, 21 authors | 67%12 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors | 70%19 favorable, 8 not, 27 authors | 62%13 favorable, 8 not, 20 authors | 58%14 favorable, 10 not, 24 authors | 69%11 favorable, 5 not, 16 authors | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 55%12 favorable, 10 not, 22 authors | 55%16 favorable, 13 not, 29 authors | 44%12 favorable, 15 not, 26 authors | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors | 38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | 33%4 favorable, 8 not, 12 authors | 33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors | 58%22 favorable, 16 not, 38 authors | 31%10 favorable, 22 not, 32 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | 63%22 favorable, 13 not, 35 authors | 56%27 favorable, 21 not, 45 authors | 80%24 favorable, 6 not, 28 authors | 56%20 favorable, 16 not, 36 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | 61%25 favorable, 16 not, 40 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | 59%20 favorable, 14 not, 32 authors | Only praise on record3 favorable, 0 not, 3 authors | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | 58%11 favorable, 8 not, 18 authors | 36%5 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors | 43%16 favorable, 21 not, 36 authors | 86%6 favorable, 1 not, 7 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 62%13 favorable, 8 not, 21 authors | 86%18 favorable, 3 not, 21 authors | 67%14 favorable, 7 not, 21 authors | 76%47 favorable, 15 not, 61 authors | 71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | Only praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors | 53%8 favorable, 7 not, 15 authors | 44%8 favorable, 10 not, 17 authors | 71%24 favorable, 10 not, 34 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors |
| Tool use and structured output | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors | 67%6 favorable, 3 not, 9 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | 46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors | 30%3 favorable, 7 not, 10 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | 70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors | 29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors | 33%4 favorable, 8 not, 12 authors | 70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors | 43%3 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | 40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors | 62%8 favorable, 5 not, 13 authors | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | 27%4 favorable, 11 not, 15 authors | 56%5 favorable, 4 not, 9 authors | No accounts yet | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 47%7 favorable, 8 not, 15 authors | 67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors | 54%7 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 59%10 favorable, 7 not, 17 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | 38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors | 38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors | Only praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors | 80%8 favorable, 2 not, 10 authors | 33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 2 not, 3 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | 46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author |
| Long context | 60%6 favorable, 4 not, 10 authors | 29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 80%8 favorable, 2 not, 10 authors | 63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors | 67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | 33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors | 71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors | 64%7 favorable, 4 not, 11 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | 40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors | 50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | 27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors | No accounts yet | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | 44%7 favorable, 9 not, 16 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | 58%7 favorable, 5 not, 12 authors | No accounts yet | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | No accounts yet | 42%5 favorable, 7 not, 12 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | 40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | No accounts yet | 40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 75%6 favorable, 2 not, 8 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet |
| Developer experience | 53%10 favorable, 9 not, 19 authors | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors | 38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors | 50%7 favorable, 7 not, 14 authors | 25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors | 29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors | 25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors | 29%4 favorable, 10 not, 14 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors | 67%8 favorable, 4 not, 12 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 2 not, 4 authors | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | 27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authors | 25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors | 41%7 favorable, 10 not, 17 authors | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | 14%1 favorable, 6 not, 7 authors | 25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors | No accounts yet | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors | 39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors | 40%8 favorable, 12 not, 20 authors | No accounts yet | 35%8 favorable, 15 not, 23 authors | No accounts yet | 9%1 favorable, 10 not, 11 authors | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 13%2 favorable, 14 not, 16 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authors | 25%5 favorable, 15 not, 20 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors | 11%1 favorable, 8 not, 9 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors | 33%5 favorable, 10 not, 15 authors | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 6 not, 6 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | No accounts yet |
| Cost | 40%6 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors | 69%20 favorable, 9 not, 29 authors | 45%10 favorable, 12 not, 22 authors | 56%15 favorable, 12 not, 27 authors | 20%4 favorable, 16 not, 20 authors | 43%3 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors | 39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authors | 8%1 favorable, 11 not, 12 authors | 50%7 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors | 50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors | 33%7 favorable, 14 not, 20 authors | 53%8 favorable, 7 not, 15 authors | 29%4 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors | 38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors | 80%8 favorable, 2 not, 9 authors | 74%14 favorable, 5 not, 19 authors | 79%22 favorable, 6 not, 26 authors | 29%7 favorable, 17 not, 23 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | 63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 55%12 favorable, 10 not, 21 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 35%7 favorable, 13 not, 20 authors | 58%14 favorable, 10 not, 23 authors | Only praise on record7 favorable, 0 not, 7 authors | 50%8 favorable, 8 not, 16 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 66%25 favorable, 13 not, 37 authors | Only praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors | 40%10 favorable, 15 not, 25 authors | 71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | 27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 8 not, 8 authors | 19%5 favorable, 21 not, 26 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | Only praise on record4 favorable, 0 not, 4 authors | 80%12 favorable, 3 not, 15 authors | 50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors | 76%16 favorable, 5 not, 21 authors | 35%8 favorable, 15 not, 23 authors | 71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 2 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Only praise on record3 favorable, 0 not, 3 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author |
| Speed | 31%4 favorable, 9 not, 13 authors | 74%14 favorable, 5 not, 19 authors | 88%14 favorable, 2 not, 16 authors | 46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors | 44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors | 17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors | 36%4 favorable, 7 not, 11 authors | 73%8 favorable, 3 not, 11 authors | 78%7 favorable, 2 not, 9 authors | 75%6 favorable, 2 not, 8 authors | 83%5 favorable, 1 not, 5 authors | 37%7 favorable, 12 not, 19 authors | 45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors | 41%7 favorable, 10 not, 17 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | 80%4 favorable, 1 not, 5 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | No accounts yet | 85%23 favorable, 4 not, 27 authors | 57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | Only praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author | 45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors | 61%19 favorable, 12 not, 31 authors | 53%10 favorable, 9 not, 17 authors | 35%6 favorable, 11 not, 16 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors | 68%21 favorable, 10 not, 30 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 21%4 favorable, 15 not, 19 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | No accounts yet | 21%3 favorable, 11 not, 14 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | 29%5 favorable, 12 not, 17 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 2 not, 3 authors | Only praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors | 44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors | 65%13 favorable, 7 not, 20 authors | 33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors | 20%3 favorable, 12 not, 15 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors | No accounts yet | 33%7 favorable, 14 not, 21 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author |
| Reliability | 17%2 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors | 20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | 18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors | 13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors | 9%1 favorable, 10 not, 11 authors | 13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors | 63%5 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors | 22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors | 18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors | 17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors | 20%3 favorable, 12 not, 15 authors | 38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors | 29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors | 40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors | 14%2 favorable, 12 not, 14 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | 17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors | 5%1 favorable, 18 not, 19 authors | 15%3 favorable, 17 not, 20 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors | 14%3 favorable, 19 not, 22 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | 42%5 favorable, 7 not, 12 authors | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | 8%1 favorable, 12 not, 13 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors | 38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | 22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | 60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors | 33%2 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Needs 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authors | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors | No accounts yet | No accounts yet | Only concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author |
The 74 accounts behind Claude Opus 4.8's figures
GILD searched Hacker News, GitHub, Reddit, X, Artificial Analysis, OpenRouter, LMArena, Vals AI and the web for accounts that name Claude Opus 4.8.
Quality and reasoning 68%
- Favorable
Opus 4.8, which is still the best in my evals
Comment on: GPT-5.6 Sol, Terra and Luna. pimeys, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 10, 2026. Opus 4.8 in the commenter's agent evals against GPT-5.6 Sol, Terra, Luna, Sonnet 5 and GLM 5.2.
- Unfavorable
Opus produced a 17,957-character globals.css with 174 CSS variables, including mostly unused color ramps
Migrating a production AI agent to GPT-5.6. Lorenzo Gentile, Ploy, self-described, Jul 9, 2026. Claude Opus 4.8 as Ploy's incumbent production agent model, against GPT-5.6 Sol.
- Unfavorable
4.8 took a shortcut today.
Comment on: Ask HN: Is Claude Opus 4.8 broken?. webninja, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 30, 2026. Opus 4.8 with a local LLM relay.
- Favorable
the output was wow! Simple, elegant and exactly what i wanted to see.
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.8. Zavora, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 29, 2026. Opus 4.8 refactoring code written by Opus 4.6.
- Unfavorable
Opus 4.8 is nearly unusable at the moment. Making extremely obvious errors
Comment on: Claude: Elevated Error Rates for Opus 4.8, Opus 4.7, Opus 4.6, and Sonnet 4.6. deminature, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 22, 2026. Opus 4.8 during the June 22 elevated error incident.
- Favorable
despite GLM and Codex and other models being hyped up as Claude Opus 4.8 replacements, I still would not trust them with my most important work
Comment on: Claude: Elevated Error Rates for Opus 4.8, Opus 4.7, Opus 4.6, and Sonnet 4.6. behnamoh, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 22, 2026. Claude Opus 4.8 on a multi-day refactoring project.
- Favorable
Opus 4.8 is the first tangible improvement since Opus 4.5
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.8. gertlabs, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 29, 2026. Opus 4.8 in Gertlabs rankings and daily use.
- Favorable
code was decent but not as good as Opus 4.8
Comment on: AI;DR (AI; Didn't Read). nicknow, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 19, 2026. Opus 4.8 for coding.
- Favorable
It's far more likely to say it doesn't know
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.8. pseudohadamard, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 29, 2026. Opus 4.8 High against Opus 4.6 Medium.
- Favorable
it tracked it down to some missing synchronisation in an upstream library
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.8. thombles, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 29, 2026. Opus 4.8 in GitHub Copilot at 15x requests, after GPT 5.5.
- Favorable
4.8 one-shotted the proof from a clean description as soon as the update came through
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.8. empath75, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 29, 2026. Opus 4.8 on a math formalization problem, after Opus 4.7.
- Favorable
Opus 4.8 was able to reproduce and fix a rare bug in our reactive dataflow that has been haunting me for 4 months
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.8. crambelsoupy, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 29, 2026. Opus 4.8 at ultra effort on a concurrency bug.
- Favorable
Opus 4.8 is now much better than either 4.7 or 4.6
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.8. ddp26, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 28, 2026. Opus 4.8 for web research.
- Favorable
Opus 4.8 is GREAT at coding in many different domains
Comment on: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive. bentt, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 23, 2026. Opus 4.8 for coding, against Opus 5.
- Favorable
Opus 4.8 was awesome.
Comment on: Grok 4.6. jm4, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 12, 2026. Opus 4.8 against Opus 5.
- Unfavorable
I just tried opus 4.8 and took 30 minutes to be confronted with a bit laziness
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.8. mgambati, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 29, 2026. Opus 4.8 against GPT 5.5.
- Unfavorable
Opus 4.8 completely misunderstood my request, and took it the opposite way
Comment on: Ask HN: Did Anthropic Nerf Opus 4.8?. czx850, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 18, 2026. Opus 4.8.
- Unfavorable
I was frustrated in all the mistakes it made
Comment on: Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?. crimsonnoodle58, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 14, 2026. Opus 4.8 in an old chat, against Opus 5.
- Unfavorable
Opus 4.8 and Opus 5 seems worse models than Opus 4.6
Comment on: Anthropic appears to be A/B testing reduced effort levels in Claude Code. throwaw12, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 22, 2026. Opus 4.8 and Opus 5 against Opus 4.6.
- Unfavorable
4.7 was a mistake and 4.8 is a bug fix. There is no improvement.
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.8. motbus3, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 30, 2026. Opus 4.8 against Opus 4.7.
- Favorable
Opus 4.8 or Fable (at great expense) are the only ones that aren't frustrating for me.
Comment on: Grok 4.6. pmarreck, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 12, 2026. Opus 4.8 against Opus 5, Fable and Sol.
- Favorable
Opus 4.8 is a legitimately great model, jumping to the top of the pack in the rankings
Vibe Check: Opus 4.8, Anthropic Should've Rounded Up to 5. Dan Shipper, cofounder and CEO of Every, May 28, 2026. Opus 4.8 at high and extra-high effort on Every's Senior Engineer and writing benchmarks.
- Favorable
Opus 4.8 is my favorite model right now.
Vibe Check: Opus 4.8, Anthropic Should've Rounded Up to 5. Kieran Klaassen, general manager of Cora at Every, May 28, 2026. Opus 4.8 at extra-high effort in autonomous coding and product workflows, against GPT-5.5 high.
- Favorable
Opus 4.8 stayed contained. It had a smaller patch footprint on 20 of 25 tasks
On 25 Stet Tasks, Opus 4.8 Wrote Smaller Patches. Opus 5 Searched Wider.. Ben, founder of Stet, self-described, Aug 25, 2026. Opus 4.8 at medium reasoning on 25 tasks from Stet's repository, against Opus 5.
- Favorable
Opus's were more often judged simple, robust, and minimal
Sonnet 5 vs Opus 4.8: how they behave and when to use each. Ben, founder of Stet, self-described, Jul 8, 2026. Opus 4.8 at five reasoning efforts in Claude Code on 24 Go and Rust tasks, against Sonnet 5.
- Favorable
I definitely notice the people saying 4.8 is a terrible model, despite this being obviously not true.
Claude Opus 4.8: Capabilities and Reactions. Zvi Mowshowitz, author of Don't Worry About the Vase, self-described, Jun 2, 2026. Opus 4.8 on claude.ai and in fast mode.
- Favorable
Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) is amongst the leading models in intelligence
Claude Opus 4.8 (max) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent model benchmark, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index and API performance runs.
- Favorable
It is the new #1 model on the Vals Index (70.17%) and the Vals Multimodal Index (70.71%), edging out GPT 5.5 on both.
Claude Opus 4.8 Benchmarks, Cost and Capabilities | Vals AI. Vals AI, independent model benchmark, self-described, May 28, 2026. Claude Opus 4.8 at max compute effort across the Vals benchmark suite.
- Favorable
there's no reason not to (same price) and 4.8 is objectively smarter
Miles Deutscher on X: thoughts on Opus 4.8 so far. Miles Deutscher, AI commentator and builder of aiedge, self-described, Jun 1, 2026. Opus 4.8 in Claude Code with Ultracode and in the desktop app.
Tool use and structured output 50%
- Favorable
Claude sends the two or three parameters it uses and omits the rest.
Migrating a production AI agent to GPT-5.6. Lorenzo Gentile, Ploy, self-described, Jul 9, 2026. Claude Opus 4.8 as Ploy's incumbent production agent model, against GPT-5.6 Sol.
- Favorable
I think the output of the agent is more structured.
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.8. Alex_toani, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 29, 2026. Opus 4.8 with Ultra coding.
- Favorable
Opus 4.8 is still the absolute quality king for agentic tasks.
Comment on: GPT-5.6 Sol Pricing Cut by 50% on OpenRouter. pimeys, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 18, 2026. Opus 4.8 in the commenter's weekly agent evals.
- Unfavorable
Opus 4.8 and below was unable to use the MCP very well, misused it really often even with instructing.
Comment on: Tapo (Rust/Python library) now speaks TP-Link's TPAP protocol. Avamander, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 6, 2026. Opus 4.8 with the commenter's MCP server.
- Favorable
They've been perfectly capable at managing their own subagents since opus 4.8
Comment on: Give your LLM more DSLs. vikramkr, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 6, 2026. Opus 4.8 managing its own subagents.
- Unfavorable
it claimed to have executed tools (gh release create / Read / Edit) and described their outputs in detail
Opus 4.8 fabricates entire tool executions inside extended thinking , no tool_use emitted, model believes tools ran and reports fake results. Just2enough, GitHub issue author, self-described, Jun 12, 2026. claude-opus-4-8 in Claude Code 2.1.169 and 2.1.173 on Windows.
- Unfavorable
Reproducible across multiple sessions over the past 2 weeks on Opus 4.8 specifically.
[Bug] Anthropic API Error: Opus 4.8 returns thinking-only responses without tool_use or text blocks. IWriteCuteBUG, GitHub issue author, self-described, Jun 15, 2026. Opus 4.8 in Claude Code with extended thinking.
- Favorable
It also places #2 on Terminal Bench 2 (70.04%)
Claude Opus 4.8 Benchmarks, Cost and Capabilities | Vals AI. Vals AI, independent model benchmark, self-described, May 28, 2026. Claude Opus 4.8 at max compute effort across the Vals benchmark suite.
- Unfavorable
Fixed the Opus 4.8 tool call issue in one workflow…. by moving to 4.6.
Patrick Moorhead on X: Opus 4.8 tool call issue. Patrick Moorhead, founder, CEO and chief analyst of Moor Insights & Strategy, self-described, Jun 7, 2026. Opus 4.8 in research workflows reading Google Drive files.
Long context 60%
- Favorable
it works very well even on multi-repos, across stack, deep changes
Comment on: DeepSeek V4 Pro 0813. ericfr11, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 12, 2026. Opus 4.8 with a custom harness on multi-repo changes.
- Favorable
Opus 4.8 ran autonomously for about 8 hours to provide program and proof of correctness
Comment on: Show HN: Formally verified polygon intersection – Opus 4.8 oneshots, prev failed. permute, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 7, 2026. Opus 4.8 on a formally verified polygon intersection.
- Unfavorable
I'm working on a huge refactoring project, and even Opus has struggled with it after several days
Comment on: Claude: Elevated Error Rates for Opus 4.8, Opus 4.7, Opus 4.6, and Sonnet 4.6. behnamoh, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 22, 2026. Claude Opus 4.8 on a multi-day refactoring project.
- Unfavorable
4.8 lands on the random-guess line for membership queries.
Comment on: Memory compaction for agents has an information-theoretic floor. kgcgfva, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 31, 2026. Opus 4.8 on context compaction recall probes.
- Favorable
I haven't had that problem since Opus 4.8. I'm regularly bumping against 800k tokens
Comment on: Notes on gotchas while migrating 35kb preprompts from Opus to self-hosted Ollama. lowbloodsugar, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 14, 2026. Opus 4.8 with the 1M context in ad hoc sessions.
- Unfavorable
Strong correlation with input context size
[MODEL] Opus 4.8: turns end with thinking-only content + end_turn (zero visible output) , incidence jumped ~10x since 2026-09-30, context-correlated, retry-resistant. uehara, GitHub issue author, self-described, Oct 1, 2026. claude-opus-4-8 with the 1M context on Claude Code 2.1.215, Max plan.
- Favorable
it carries context across that span better than 4.7 did
Vibe Check: Opus 4.8, Anthropic Should've Rounded Up to 5. Dan Shipper, cofounder and CEO of Every, May 28, 2026. Opus 4.8 at high and extra-high effort on Every's Senior Engineer and writing benchmarks.
- Favorable
better at carrying context and direction across a long session than Opus 4.7
Vibe Check: Opus 4.8, Anthropic Should've Rounded Up to 5. Katie Parrott, staff writer at Every, May 28, 2026. Opus 4.8 for code and copy over long sessions, against GPT-5.5.
- Unfavorable
huge context windows become insanely slow even on high reasoning, such that simple questions would take minutes to answer
Anthony Kroeger on X: 200k vs 1M context for Opus 4.8 in Claude Code. Anthony Kroeger, FDE at Lyra, self-described, Jun 18, 2026. Opus 4.8 with the 1M context window in the Claude Code app.
- Favorable
4.8 is much better at remembering what it's doing and following instructions than 5
Comment on: Claude Opus 5.5 Intelligence, Performance and Price Analysis (Max). linuxrebe1, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 22, 2026. Opus 4.8 against Opus 5.
Developer experience 53%
- Unfavorable
No amount of telling it to phrase stuff differently seems to help there anymore.
Comment on: GLM-5.3: Frontier coding with emergent cyber capabilities. hypfer, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 14, 2026. Opus 4.8.
- Favorable
you can now turn off adaptive thinking in the web UI, which is great
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.8. colonCapitalDee, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 28, 2026. Opus 4.8 in the Claude web UI with adaptive thinking off.
- Favorable
I'm glad that they brought back the ability to disable adaptive thinking in Opus 4.8
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.8. kakugawa, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 28, 2026. Opus 4.8 with adaptive thinking disabled.
- Favorable
it's just as capable and you can actually understand the output
Comment on: Vomit: Clean up Claude 5's token output with a separate LLM. tombot, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 20, 2026. Opus 4.8 against Opus 5.
- Favorable
Friends switching back from Fable/Opus 5 to Opus 4.8 just so they can have some input.
Comment on: The Vibe Tax. danpalmer, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 24, 2026. Opus 4.8 against Fable and Opus 5.
- Favorable
it doesn't seem to have the personality problems of the last release -- I've been enjoying using it.
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.8. gertlabs, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 29, 2026. Opus 4.8 in Gertlabs rankings and daily use.
- Favorable
I still use Opus 4.6 and 4.8 regularly, as I often find Opus 5 too verbose
Comment on: Bring back Opus 4.8 in Claude Code. osr00, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 19, 2026. Opus 4.6 and Opus 4.8 in Claude Code via the modelPicker setting.
- Unfavorable
Opus 4.8 had an annoying habit of declaring a huge mistake was found, then two sentences later abruptly change its mind
Comment on: Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?. SubiculumCode, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 14, 2026. Opus 4.8.
- Unfavorable
I'm shocked by how much commenting it does
Comment on: AI;DR (AI; Didn't Read). nicknow, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 19, 2026. Opus 4.8 for coding.
- Unfavorable
makes assumptions without checking - and reinterprets or updates my plans without asking
Comment on: Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?. gitowiec, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 14, 2026. Opus 4.8 at work.
- Unfavorable
this is honestly the most sycophantic, ChatGPT like experience I have had from Anthropic
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.8. RayVR, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 29, 2026. Opus 4.8, a morning of use.
- Unfavorable
it also spends a lot more time reporting on what it's thought about so it takes longer for you to process the output
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.8. pseudohadamard, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 29, 2026. Opus 4.8 High against Opus 4.6 Medium.
- Unfavorable
the build fails with a ValidationException specifically for us.anthropic.claude-opus-4-8
[Bug]: Temperature Parameter Deprecated for Claude Opus 4.8. shreyah963, GitHub issue author, self-described, Jul 23, 2026. us.anthropic.claude-opus-4-8 on AWS Bedrock in a Jenkins release-notes workflow.
- Unfavorable
The first is that output quality is heavily dependent on effort level.
Vibe Check: Opus 4.8, Anthropic Should've Rounded Up to 5. Dan Shipper, cofounder and CEO of Every, May 28, 2026. Opus 4.8 at high and extra-high effort on Every's Senior Engineer and writing benchmarks.
- Favorable
it communicates better than GPT-5.5 or Opus 4.7
Vibe Check: Opus 4.8, Anthropic Should've Rounded Up to 5. Kieran Klaassen, general manager of Cora at Every, May 28, 2026. Opus 4.8 at extra-high effort in autonomous coding and product workflows, against GPT-5.5 high.
- Favorable
more intuitive, easier to collaborate with
Vibe Check: Opus 4.8, Anthropic Should've Rounded Up to 5. Katie Parrott, staff writer at Every, May 28, 2026. Opus 4.8 for code and copy over long sessions, against GPT-5.5.
- Favorable
Being able to steer the system prompt mid-conversation sounds really powerful.
Claude Opus 4.8: "a modest but tangible improvement". Simon Willison, independent developer and blogger, self-described, May 28, 2026. Claude Opus 4.8 via the LLM CLI at five thinking levels.
- Unfavorable
it looks like you can't pick 200k vs 1m context window for Opus 4.8 in the Claude Code app
Anthony Kroeger on X: 200k vs 1M context for Opus 4.8 in Claude Code. Anthony Kroeger, FDE at Lyra, self-described, Jun 18, 2026. Opus 4.8 with the 1M context window in the Claude Code app.
- Favorable
Being able to swap reasoning effort directly in-app is a complete game-changer.
Miles Deutscher on X: thoughts on Opus 4.8 so far. Miles Deutscher, AI commentator and builder of aiedge, self-described, Jun 1, 2026. Opus 4.8 in Claude Code with Ultracode and in the desktop app.
Cost 40%
- Favorable
Sonnet 5 is a bit better but more expensive than Opus 4.8
Comment on: GPT-5.6 Sol, Terra and Luna. pimeys, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 10, 2026. Opus 4.8 in the commenter's agent evals against GPT-5.6 Sol, Terra, Luna, Sonnet 5 and GLM 5.2.
- Unfavorable
GPT-5.6's per-suite cost dropped below Opus's
Migrating a production AI agent to GPT-5.6. Lorenzo Gentile, Ploy, self-described, Jul 9, 2026. Claude Opus 4.8 as Ploy's incumbent production agent model, against GPT-5.6 Sol.
- Unfavorable
I went back to Opus 4.8, but recently switched to GPT 5.6 Luna. The results are comparable in quality, but it's much cheaper
Comment on: Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?. gwbas1c, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 14, 2026. Opus 4.8 in Visual Studio via Copilot, against GPT 5.6 Luna.
- Favorable
without burning tokens - yey!
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.8. Zavora, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 29, 2026. Opus 4.8 refactoring code written by Opus 4.6.
- Unfavorable
Opus 4.8 is 2x more expensive
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.8. XCSme, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 28, 2026. Opus 4.8 on the commenter's AIBenchy test questions.
- Unfavorable
Too bad it's so expensive.
Comment on: GPT-5.6 Sol Pricing Cut by 50% on OpenRouter. pimeys, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 18, 2026. Opus 4.8 in the commenter's weekly agent evals.
- Favorable
the *cost per successful task* of Opus 4.8 is 10.7 cents vs 19.4 cents of K3
Comment on: Kimi K3, Qwen 3.8, and Anthropic's (Potential) Unravelling. sinuhe69, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jul 21, 2026. Opus 4.8 cost per task on Artificial Analysis and AI-Benchy, against Kimi K3.
- Favorable
worth every one of those rather expensive 15x requests today
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.8. thombles, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 29, 2026. Opus 4.8 in GitHub Copilot at 15x requests, after GPT 5.5.
- Unfavorable
It's not as quite as smart as opus 4.8 but it's close and x4 the cheaper.
Comment on: Grok 4.6 scores 61 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index. vorticalbox, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 12, 2026. Opus 4.8 at $5 in and $25 out against Grok.
- Unfavorable
I was previously using Opus 4.8 but Grok is good enough now, and way cheaper
Comment on: Cursor is now a part of SpaceX. melodyogonna, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 14, 2026. Opus 4.8 against Grok 4.6.
- Unfavorable
Gpt 5.5 uses a third of the opus 4.8 tokens for the same task and scores higher.
Comment on: Claude: Elevated Error Rates for Opus 4.8, Opus 4.7, Opus 4.6, and Sonnet 4.6. viraptor, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 22, 2026. Opus 4.8 on DeepSWE token usage, against GPT 5.5 and GLM 5.2.
- Unfavorable
Three users running Opus 4.8 at max non-stop will probably clean your monthly allowance from daddy Dario in less than a week.
Comment on: My local model setup on an M4 Pro Mac Mini. ux266478, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Sep 2, 2026. Opus 4.8 at max effort on Anthropic's scale tier.
- Favorable
Opus's dial is flatter, about 4x from $1.58 to $6.41
Sonnet 5 vs Opus 4.8: how they behave and when to use each. Ben, founder of Stet, self-described, Jul 8, 2026. Opus 4.8 at five reasoning efforts in Claude Code on 24 Go and Rust tasks, against Sonnet 5.
- Favorable
which is a significant reduction from their previous models
Claude Opus 4.8: "a modest but tangible improvement". Simon Willison, independent developer and blogger, self-described, May 28, 2026. Claude Opus 4.8 via the LLM CLI at five thinking levels.
- Favorable
This is much cheaper than fast mode for Opus 4.7, which cost $30/$150.
Claude Opus 4.8: Capabilities and Reactions. Zvi Mowshowitz, author of Don't Worry About the Vase, self-described, Jun 2, 2026. Opus 4.8 on claude.ai and in fast mode.
- Unfavorable
particularly expensive when comparing to other models of similar price
Claude Opus 4.8 (max) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent model benchmark, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index and API performance runs.
- Unfavorable
burns through tokens though (as expected)
Miles Deutscher on X: thoughts on Opus 4.8 so far. Miles Deutscher, AI commentator and builder of aiedge, self-described, Jun 1, 2026. Opus 4.8 in Claude Code with Ultracode and in the desktop app.
Speed 31%
- Unfavorable
GPT-5.6 finished pages 2.2× faster, cost 27% less, and used about half the output tokens
Migrating a production AI agent to GPT-5.6. Lorenzo Gentile, Ploy, self-described, Jul 9, 2026. Claude Opus 4.8 as Ploy's incumbent production agent model, against GPT-5.6 Sol.
- Favorable
Opus 4.8, compared to 5, was 3-5 times faster 3 months ago.
Comment on: Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?. system2, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 14, 2026. Opus 4.8 against Opus 5.
- Favorable
Reran with Claude Opus 4.8 - fixed in under a minute.
Comment on: A week of using Codex more than Claude. tecoholic, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 21, 2026. Claude Opus 4.8 on a Python package build failure, against Gemini 3.7 Flash.
- Favorable
Opus 4.8 on Low is similar in price and quality to Sonnet 5 on High, but much faster.
Comment on: GPT-5.6 Sol Pricing Cut by 50% on OpenRouter. drdexebtjl, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 18, 2026. Opus 4.8 on Low effort against Sonnet 5 on High.
- Unfavorable
The results are comparable in quality, but it's much cheaper and much faster.
Comment on: Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?. gwbas1c, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 14, 2026. Opus 4.8 in Visual Studio via Copilot, against GPT 5.6 Luna.
- Unfavorable
It's unbearably slow, for sure.
Comment on: Ask HN: Is Claude Opus 4.8 broken?. webninja, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 30, 2026. Opus 4.8 with a local LLM relay.
- Unfavorable
Opus 4.8 seems to be going down that path (unusably slow, but this could be a launch day rollout problem)
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.8. gertlabs, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 28, 2026. Opus 4.8 on launch day in Gertlabs testing.
- Unfavorable
4.8 is very slow on difficult tasks - urgh!
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.8. Zavora, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 29, 2026. Opus 4.8 refactoring code written by Opus 4.6.
- Unfavorable
and 2x slower on some questions
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.8. XCSme, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 28, 2026. Opus 4.8 on the commenter's AIBenchy test questions.
- Favorable
Faster than 4.7, better at explaining itself than GPT-5.5
Vibe Check: Opus 4.8, Anthropic Should've Rounded Up to 5. Dan Shipper, cofounder and CEO of Every, May 28, 2026. Opus 4.8 at high and extra-high effort on Every's Senior Engineer and writing benchmarks.
- Unfavorable
It's slower than GPT-5.5 and sometimes too noisy in comments
Vibe Check: Opus 4.8, Anthropic Should've Rounded Up to 5. Kieran Klaassen, general manager of Cora at Every, May 28, 2026. Opus 4.8 at extra-high effort in autonomous coding and product workflows, against GPT-5.5 high.
- Unfavorable
GPT-5.5 is still faster, which makes it my go-to for iterative work
Vibe Check: Opus 4.8, Anthropic Should've Rounded Up to 5. Katie Parrott, staff writer at Every, May 28, 2026. Opus 4.8 for code and copy over long sessions, against GPT-5.5.
- Unfavorable
It's also slower than average and very verbose.
Claude Opus 4.8 (max) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent model benchmark, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index and API performance runs.
- Unfavorable
Pretty slow, but smart.
Miles Deutscher on X: thoughts on Opus 4.8 so far. Miles Deutscher, AI commentator and builder of aiedge, self-described, Jun 1, 2026. Opus 4.8 in Claude Code with Ultracode and in the desktop app.
Reliability 17%
- Unfavorable
Now 4.8. No difference, same thing. But the app is broken and nothing works.
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.8. IFC_LLC, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 28, 2026. Opus 4.8 in the Claude app on launch day.
- Unfavorable
Thinking on max is broken on 4.8 for me
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.8. rkuska, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 28, 2026. Opus 4.8 at max thinking in Claude Code /code-review.
- Unfavorable
it started throwing an error no matter what I sent to the chat
Comment on: Claude Opus 4.8. sillyboi, Hacker News commenter, self-described, May 29, 2026. Opus 4.8 at Ultracode xhigh with workflows.
- Unfavorable
It should be illegal not to disclose serious degradations of performance while still charging full price.
Comment on: Claude: Elevated Error Rates for Opus 4.8, Opus 4.7, Opus 4.6, and Sonnet 4.6. deminature, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 22, 2026. Opus 4.8 during the June 22 elevated error incident.
- Unfavorable
I used Opus 4.8 two to three months ago for writing a paper and I swear the responses and the output was MUCH better than in July.
Comment on: Why does Opus 5 feel worse to work with?. 7bit, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 14, 2026. Opus 4.8 for writing a paper, May to July.
- Unfavorable
something changed about the model, the harness, the servers or the universe
Comment on: GLM-5.3: Frontier coding with emergent cyber capabilities. hypfer, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 14, 2026. Opus 4.8.
- Favorable
I prefer the more consistent performance of Opus 4.8.
Comment on: Anthropic's best AI model struggles to attract users as cheaper tools thrive. dulakian, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 23, 2026. Opus 4.8 against Opus 5.
- Favorable
Opus 4.8 is still working great for me!
Comment on: Anthropic appears to be A/B testing reduced effort levels in Claude Code. logicallee, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Aug 22, 2026. Opus 4.8 after reverting from Opus 5.
- Unfavorable
claude-opus-4-8[1m] is temporarily unavailable
Comment on: Statement on US government directive to suspend access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5. nrmitchi, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Jun 13, 2026. Opus 4.8 with the 1M context as Fable's fallback.
- Unfavorable
suggesting a model/server-side regression
[MODEL] Opus 4.8: turns end with thinking-only content + end_turn (zero visible output) , incidence jumped ~10x since 2026-09-30, context-correlated, retry-resistant. uehara, GitHub issue author, self-described, Oct 1, 2026. claude-opus-4-8 with the 1M context on Claude Code 2.1.215, Max plan.
- Unfavorable
claude-opus-4-8 is temporarily unavailable, so auto mode cannot determine the safety of Bash right now
Auto mode classifier (claude-opus-4-8) repeatedly unavailable , blocks Bash/Write/Edit. syk82, GitHub issue author, self-described, May 30, 2026. Opus 4.8 as Claude Code auto mode classifier with the 1M context, Claude Max.
- Unfavorable
Tools break that once worked on prior models.
Patrick Moorhead on X: Opus 4.8 tool call issue. Patrick Moorhead, founder, CEO and chief analyst of Moor Insights & Strategy, self-described, Jun 7, 2026. Opus 4.8 in research workflows reading Google Drive files.