Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Interfaze Beta
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #5 (Supported); Interfaze Beta unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.8 and Interfaze Beta share 2 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 51 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 8 to Interfaze Beta.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- Claude Opus 4.8 only
- 51
- Interfaze Beta only
- 8
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Claude Opus 4.8 makes more sense if multimodal & grounded is the priority; Interfaze Beta is the better fit if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 1 evidence category; 2 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 and Interfaze Beta 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 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.50 input / $3.50 output per 1M tokens for Interfaze Beta. That is roughly 7.1x on output cost alone.
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 | Interfaze Beta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.862.7 | Margin→ 27.2 | Interfaze Beta89.9 |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.877.0 | Margin← 5.9 | Interfaze Beta71.1 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.880.3 | MarginNo overlap | Interfaze BetaNot measured |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.881.1 | MarginNo overlap | Interfaze BetaNot measured |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.853.9 | MarginNo overlap | Interfaze BetaNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 93.6%B 89.9%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 3.7GPQA: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 93.6%; Interfaze Beta scored 89.9%. 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 | Interfaze Beta | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 output | Interfaze Beta$1.5 input / $3.5 output | Interfaze Beta has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.8Not available | Interfaze BetaNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.8Not available | Interfaze BetaNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.81M | Interfaze Beta1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic21 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Interfaze Beta | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
Coding11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Interfaze Beta | 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% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 53.5% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 46.5% | — | Not comparable |
| Spider 2.0-LiteSource | — | 52.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeInterfaze Beta wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Interfaze Beta | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 93.6% | 89.9% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 93.6% | 89.9% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| HLESource | 57.9% | — | 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 |
| MMMLUSource | — | 90.9% | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Interfaze Beta | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| INCLUDESource | 87.6% | — | Not comparable |
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.8 wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Interfaze Beta | 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 |
| OCRBench V2Source | — | 70.7% | Not comparable |
| olmOCRSource | — | 85.7% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 82.1% | Not comparable |
| VoxPopuli WERSource | — | 2.4% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 71.1% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Interfaze Beta?
Claude Opus 4.8 and Interfaze Beta 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, Claude Opus 4.8 or Interfaze Beta?
Interfaze Beta has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 89.9 versus 62.7. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Interfaze Beta?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 77 versus 71.1. Interfaze Beta 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.