Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.8 vs GPT-5.4 nano
Head-to-head evidence from 24 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #5 (Supported); GPT-5.4 nano #25 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.4 nano share 24 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 29 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 5 to GPT-5.4 nano.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 24
- Claude Opus 4.8 only
- 29
- GPT-5.4 nano only
- 5
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5.4 nano only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 24 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 4 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 66.79. 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 agentic, where it averages 80.3 against 42.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is OSWorld-Verified, 83.4% to 39%.
Claude Opus 4.8 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.20 input / $1.25 output per 1M tokens for GPT-5.4 nano. That is roughly 20.0x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.8 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 400K for GPT-5.4 nano.
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 Opus 4.8 | Δ | GPT-5.4 nano |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.880.3 | Margin← 37.4 | GPT-5.4 nano42.9 |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.853.9 | Margin← 32.9 | GPT-5.4 nano21.0 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.862.7 | Margin← 18.9 | GPT-5.4 nano43.8 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.877.0 | Margin← 10.9 | GPT-5.4 nano66.1 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.881.1 | MarginNo overlap | GPT-5.4 nanoNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
OSWorld-Verified
AgenticA 83.4%B 39%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 44.4OSWorld-Verified: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 83.4%; GPT-5.4 nano scored 39%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 74.6%B 46.3%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 28.3Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 74.6%; GPT-5.4 nano scored 46.3%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 31.250%B 6.250%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 25FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Opus 4.8 scored 31.250%; GPT-5.4 nano scored 6.250%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 47.241%B 25.860%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 21.4FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.8 scored 47.241%; GPT-5.4 nano scored 25.860%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 57.9%B 37.7%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 20.2HLE: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 57.9%; GPT-5.4 nano scored 37.7%. 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 Opus 4.8 | GPT-5.4 nano | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 output | GPT-5.4 nano$0.2 input / $1.25 output | GPT-5.4 nano has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.8Not available | GPT-5.4 nano191 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.8Not available | GPT-5.4 nano3.64 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.81M | GPT-5.4 nano400K | Claude Opus 4.8 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 4.8 wins22 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | GPT-5.4 nano | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 74.6% | 46.3% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 84.3% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | 93.1% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 83.4% | 39% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| Finance Agent v2Source | 53.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 1594 | 1100 | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| MCP AtlasSource | 82.2% | 56.1% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| ToolathlonSource | 59.9% | 35.5% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 72.97% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 47.2% | 27.5% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 94.4% | 76% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 54.7% | 30.0% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| 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 |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 24.9% | Not comparable |
Coding11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | GPT-5.4 nano | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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% | 56.1% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 53.5% | 46.9% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 46.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 26.10% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.8 wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | GPT-5.4 nano | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 93.6% | 82.8% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 57.9% | 37.7% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 49.8% | 24.3% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 55.7% | 38.2% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.0% | 81.7% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 45.7% | 26.5% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 27.4% | -29.5% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 46.6% | 25.4% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 35.9% | 73.6% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
MathClaude Opus 4.8 wins3 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | GPT-5.4 nano | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| INCLUDESource | 87.6% | — | Not comparable |
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.8 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | GPT-5.4 nano | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1270 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 66.1% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource | — | 69.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 65.4% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | GPT-5.4 nano | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 62.2% | 75.9% | GPT-5.4 nano leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or GPT-5.4 nano?
Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 78.34 to 66.79. The biggest single separator in this matchup is OSWorld-Verified, where the scores are 83.4% and 39%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or GPT-5.4 nano?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 62.7 versus 43.8. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.8 or GPT-5.4 nano?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 53.9 versus 21. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or GPT-5.4 nano?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 80.3 versus 42.9. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or GPT-5.4 nano?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 77 versus 66.1. GPT-5.4 nano stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
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.