Model comparison
Claude 4.1 Opus vs Claude Opus 4.8
Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude 4.1 Opus #142 (Supported); Claude Opus 4.8 #5 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude 4.1 Opus and Claude Opus 4.8 share 3 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Claude 4.1 Opus; 50 to Claude Opus 4.8.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 3
- Claude 4.1 Opus only
- 1
- Claude Opus 4.8 only
- 50
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 4.1 Opus only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 3 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Opus 4.8 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 78.34 to 45.88. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.8's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 81.1 against 74.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 74.5% to 88.6%.
Claude 4.1 Opus is also the more expensive model on tokens at $15.00 input / $75.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude Opus 4.8. That is roughly 3.0x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.8 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude 4.1 Opus is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Claude Opus 4.8 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude 4.1 Opus.
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 | Claude 4.1 Opus | Δ | Claude Opus 4.8 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude 4.1 Opus74.5 | Margin→ 6.6 | Claude Opus 4.881.1 |
| Agentic | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.880.3 |
| Knowledge | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.862.7 |
| Math | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.853.9 |
| Multimodal | Claude 4.1 OpusNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.877.0 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 74.5%B 88.6%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 14.1SWE-bench Verified: Claude 4.1 Opus scored 74.5%; Claude Opus 4.8 scored 88.6%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude 4.1 Opus | Claude Opus 4.8 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude 4.1 Opus$15 input / $75 output | Claude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 output | Claude Opus 4.8 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude 4.1 Opus29 tok/s | Claude Opus 4.8Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude 4.1 Opus1.66 s | Claude Opus 4.8Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude 4.1 Opus200K | Claude Opus 4.81M | Claude Opus 4.8 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic22 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus | Claude Opus 4.8 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| JobBenchSource | 21.9% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 74.6% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 84.3% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 93.1% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 83.4% | Not comparable |
| Finance Agent v2Source | — | 53.9% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1594 | Not 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 | — | 1347 | Not 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 |
CodingClaude Opus 4.8 wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus | Claude Opus 4.8 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 74.5% | 88.6% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| 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 |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus | Claude Opus 4.8 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 28.2% | 55.7% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 93.6% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 93.6% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 57.9% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 49.8% | 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 |
Math3 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus | Claude Opus 4.8 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| INCLUDESource | — | 87.6% | Not comparable |
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 4.1 Opus | Claude Opus 4.8 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 62.2% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude 4.1 Opus or Claude Opus 4.8?
Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 78.34 to 45.88. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 74.5% and 88.6%.
Which is better for coding, Claude 4.1 Opus or Claude Opus 4.8?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 81.1 versus 74.5. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
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.