Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Agents-A1 vs Claude Opus 4.8

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

Agents-A1
InternScience
N/A
No comparison
78.34/100
0 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Agents-A1 unranked (Not scored); Claude Opus 4.8 #5 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Agents-A1 and Claude Opus 4.8 share 2 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to Agents-A1; 51 to Claude Opus 4.8.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
2
Agents-A1 only
4
Claude Opus 4.8 only
51
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Agents-A1 makes more sense if its workflow fits your team better; Claude Opus 4.8 is the better fit if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Agents-A1 and Claude Opus 4.8 finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.

Claude Opus 4.8 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Agents-A1.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Agents-A1 and Claude Opus 4.8
CategoryAgents-A1ΔClaude Opus 4.8
KnowledgeAgents-A147.6Margin→ 15.1Claude Opus 4.862.7
AgenticAgents-A175.5Margin→ 4.8Claude Opus 4.880.3
CodingAgents-A1Not measuredMarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.881.1
ReasoningAgents-A160.2MarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.8Not measured
MathAgents-A1Not measuredMarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.853.9
MultimodalAgents-A1Not measuredMarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.877.0
Inst. FollowingAgents-A194.8MarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.8Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Agents-A1B · Claude Opus 4.8

  1. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 47.6%B 57.9%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 10.3
    HLE: Agents-A1 scored 47.6%; Claude Opus 4.8 scored 57.9%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  2. BrowseComp

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 75.5%B 84.3%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 8.8
    BrowseComp: Agents-A1 scored 75.5%; Claude Opus 4.8 scored 84.3%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricAgents-A1Claude Opus 4.8Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensAgents-A1Not availableClaude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 outputA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondAgents-A1Not availableClaude Opus 4.8Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenAgents-A1Not availableClaude Opus 4.8Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensAgents-A1262KClaude Opus 4.81MClaude Opus 4.8 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkAgents-A1Claude Opus 4.8Result
BrowseCompSource 75.5%84.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
HLE w/ toolsSource 47.6%—Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource 38.8%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —74.6%Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource —93.1%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource —83.4%Not comparable
Finance Agent v2Source —53.9%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1594Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —82.2%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —59.9%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —72.97%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —47.2%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —94.4%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —54.7%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource —21.1%Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —20.6%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —1347Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource —48.5%Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource —44.0%Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource —91.1%Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource —27.6%Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource —58.3%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source —84.6%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkAgents-A1Claude Opus 4.8Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource —88.6%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —69.2%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —84.4%Not comparable
SWE MultimodalSource —38.4%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —74.6%Not comparable
cursorBench31Source —58.4%Not comparable
cursorBench32Source —62.3%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —74.3%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource —53.5%Not comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource —46.5%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkAgents-A1Claude Opus 4.8Result
LongBench v2Source 60.2%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource —67.7%Not comparable
CritPtSource —20.9%Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkAgents-A1Claude Opus 4.8Result
HLESource 47.6%57.9%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
GPQASource —93.6%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —93.6%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource —49.8%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource —55.7%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource —92.0%Not comparable
AA-HLESource —45.7%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource —27.4%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource —46.6%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource —35.9%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkAgents-A1Claude Opus 4.8Result
USAMO 2026Source —96.7%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source —47.241%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source —31.250%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkAgents-A1Claude Opus 4.8Result
INCLUDESource —87.6%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkAgents-A1Claude Opus 4.8Result
OfficeQA ProSource —66.2%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource —87.9%Not comparable
CharXivSource —89.9%Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource —80.5%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource —1270Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkAgents-A1Claude Opus 4.8Result
IFEvalSource 94.8%—Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource —62.2%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Agents-A1 or Claude Opus 4.8?

Agents-A1 and Claude Opus 4.8 are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Agents-A1 or Claude Opus 4.8?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 62.7 versus 47.6. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Agents-A1 or Claude Opus 4.8?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 80.3 versus 75.5. Inside this category, BrowseComp is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

InternScience Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.