Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Claude Opus 4.8
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 58.3 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 59 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 59 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 6 categories and Claude Opus 4.8 in 4 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.8 leads 78.4 to 66.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 39% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 91.1% for Claude Opus 4.8.
- Both cost about the same: $5 input and $25 output per million tokens.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.7 | Claude Opus 4.8 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Anthropic |
| Noometry Index | 58.3 | 60.7 |
| Released | 2026-04-14 | 2026-05-28 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 128K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | $5 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | $25 |
| Results tracked | 66 | 65 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.7: 59.6 (#13), Claude Opus 4.8: 59.9 (#12)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Claude Opus 4.8 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierCode | 38.5% | 46.5% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1558 | 1556 |
| SciCode | 54.5% | 53.5% |
| GSO | 44.1% | 47.1% |
| WeirdML | 76.4% | 82.9% |
| LMArena Coding | 1518 | 1490 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,323 | 1,564 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 83.5% | — |
| DeepSWE | — | 59% |
| MirrorCode | 31.1% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#11)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Claude Opus 4.8 |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 49.2% | 48.9% |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 18.2% | 20.6% |
| τ²-bench Banking | 40.2% | 39.7% |
| PostTrainBench | 28.6% | 33.8% |
| GBAEval | 43.8% | 70.9% |
| GDP.pdf | 21% | 24% |
| LMArena Search | 1233 | 1204 |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 10,937 | 5,787 |
| Terminal-Bench | 80.2% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | — | 8.3% |
| DeepResearch Bench | — | 50.2% |
| ExploitBench | 26.5% | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29), Claude Opus 4.8: 64.7 (#16)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Claude Opus 4.8 |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 75.8% | 72.1% |
| SimpleBench | 61.7% | 64.8% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 80.7% | 88.8% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 39% | 91.1% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 93.5% | 92.5% |
| CritPt | 12% | 20.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | 30% | 34% |
| EBR-Bench | 19% | 28.6% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1506 | 1482 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 28% | 36% |
| DTBench | 94.7% | 94.9% |
| LMCA | 52.2% | 57.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.25 | 158.21 |
| ForecastBench | 60.3 | 59.9 |
| EnigmaEval | — | 23.5% |
| Thematic Generalization | 72.8% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 87.5% |
| Bench to the Future 3 | — | 0.14 |
Math Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), Claude Opus 4.8: 78.4 (#13)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Claude Opus 4.8 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 70.2% | 80% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 31.7% | 56.1% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 73.6% | 91.8% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 97.8% | 98.3% |
| ProofBench | 54% | 69% |
| LMArena Math | 1499 | 1487 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 43.8% | 47.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 22.9% | 31.3% |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23), Claude Opus 4.8: 61.3 (#29)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Claude Opus 4.8 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.2% | 91% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 51.7% | 53% |
| LMArena Expert | 1521 | 1502 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 36.2% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | — |
Multimodal Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), Claude Opus 4.8: 42.9 (#26)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Claude Opus 4.8 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1316 | 1294 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 24.5% | 14.5% |
| Furniture Assembly | 33.3% | 42.5% |
| LMArena Document | 1495 | 1475 |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), Claude Opus 4.8: 55.2 (#33)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Claude Opus 4.8 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1480 | 1450 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1531 | 1507 |
| LMArena French | 1503 | 1481 |
| LMArena German | 1495 | 1472 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1472 | 1440 |
| LMArena Korean | 1464 | 1432 |
| LMArena Russian | 1494 | 1474 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1495 | 1466 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), Claude Opus 4.8: 77.4 (#24)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Claude Opus 4.8 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1498 | 1476 |
Long Context Too close to call
Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#35)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Claude Opus 4.8 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1505 | 1483 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads
Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), Claude Opus 4.8: 72.0 (#16)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Claude Opus 4.8 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1490 | 1461 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1486 | 1454 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1914 | 1840 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1311 | 1281 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1505 | 1476 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Claude Opus 4.8?
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 58.3 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 or Claude Opus 4.8?
Claude Opus 4.8 is cheaper. It lists at $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.
Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Claude Opus 4.8 better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (59.6 vs 59.9); test both on your own repository before choosing.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and Claude Opus 4.8 share?
59 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Claude Opus 4.8 has 65.