Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Claude Opus 4.8

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 18 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

71.94/100
Margin
6.4pts
winning →
78.34/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 #12 (Supported); Claude Opus 4.8 #5 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 and Claude Opus 4.8 share 18 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7; 35 to Claude Opus 4.8.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
18
Claude Opus 4.7 only
3
Claude Opus 4.8 only
35
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.7 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 18 shared benchmark results across 7 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 71.94. 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 mathematics, where it averages 53.9 against 38.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), 22.917% to 31.250%.

Claude Opus 4.8 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Opus 4.7 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.

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 Claude Opus 4.7 and Claude Opus 4.8
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7ΔClaude Opus 4.8
MathClaude Opus 4.738.6Margin→ 15.3Claude Opus 4.853.9
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.880.3
CodingClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.881.1
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.862.7
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7Not measuredMarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.877.0

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.7B · Claude Opus 4.8

  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 22.917%B 31.250%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 8.3
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Opus 4.7 scored 22.917%; Claude Opus 4.8 scored 31.250%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 43.793%B 47.241%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 3.4
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.7 scored 43.793%; Claude Opus 4.8 scored 47.241%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Opus 4.7Claude Opus 4.8Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7$5 input / $25 outputClaude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 outputListed prices are equal.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7Not availableClaude Opus 4.8Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7Not availableClaude Opus 4.8Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.71MClaude Opus 4.81MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Claude Opus 4.8Result
τ²-bench resultsSource 74%94.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Gert LabsSource 65.59%72.97%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
ResearchClawBenchSource 20.7%21.1%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
OSWorld 2.0Source 13.9%20.6%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
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 —1594Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —82.2%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —59.9%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —47.2%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —54.7%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
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Claude Opus 4.8Result
Vibe Code BenchSource 71.00%—Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 82.8%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 50.1%53.5%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 38.5%46.5%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
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
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Claude Opus 4.8Result
AA-LCRSource 67.0%67.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
CritPtSource 5.1%20.9%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Claude Opus 4.8Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 42.7%55.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 88.5%92.0%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-HLESource 31.2%45.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 14.2%27.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 43.5%46.6%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 51.9%35.9%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
MathClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Claude Opus 4.8Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 43.793%47.241%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 22.917%31.250%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
USAMO 2026Source —96.7%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Claude Opus 4.8Result
INCLUDESource —87.6%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Claude Opus 4.8Result
AA-MMMU-ProSource 76.4%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13251270Claude Opus 4.7 leads
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
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Claude Opus 4.8Result
AA-IFBenchSource 43.6%62.2%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 or Claude Opus 4.8?

Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 78.34 to 71.94. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), where the scores are 22.917% and 31.250%.

Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.7 or Claude Opus 4.8?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 53.9 versus 38.6. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic 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.