Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs GPT-3.5-turbo

Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 23.2 on the Noometry Index. GPT-3.5-turbo costs 13× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 28 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic

60.7

Rank #13 Confirmed

GPT-3.5-turbo OpenAI

23.2

Rank #350 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 28 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher in 8 categories and GPT-3.5-turbo in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.8 leads 78.4 to 6.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 98.3% for Claude Opus 4.8 and 2.2% for GPT-3.5-turbo.
  • GPT-3.5-turbo is cheaper at $0.50 / $1.50 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.8.
  • Claude Opus 4.8 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 16K.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.8GPT-3.5-turbo
ProviderAnthropicOpenAI
Noometry Index60.723.2
Released2026-05-282023-03-01
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window1M16K
Max output128K4K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.50
Output $ / M tokens$25$1.50
Results tracked6544

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 59.9 (#12), GPT-3.5-turbo: 23.9 (#331)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8GPT-3.5-turbo
WeirdML82.9%3.5%
LMArena Coding14901136
DeepSWE59%—
FrontierCode46.5%—
LMArena WebDev1556—
SciCode53.5%—
GSO47.1%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—39.1%
BigCodeBench Complete—50.6%
ALE-Bench1,564—
HumanEval+—70.7%
MBPP+—69.7%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#11), GPT-3.5-turbo: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8GPT-3.5-turbo
APEX-Agents48.9%—
OSWorld 2.020.6%—
Remote Labor Index8.3%—
τ²-bench Banking39.7%—
DeepResearch Bench50.2%—
PostTrainBench33.8%—
GBAEval70.9%—
GDP.pdf24%—
LMArena Search1204—
METR Time Horizons—21.5%
Vending-Bench 25,787—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 64.7 (#16), GPT-3.5-turbo: 13.8 (#332)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8GPT-3.5-turbo
Chess Puzzles34%0%
LMArena Hard Prompts14821108
Mystery Game Puzzles36%3%
DTBench94.9%48.5%
LMCA57.5%9.7%
Epoch Capabilities Index158.21118.55
ForecastBench59.950.4
ARC-AGI-272.1%—
SimpleBench64.8%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark88.8%—
NYT Connections (extended)91.1%—
ARC-AGI-192.5%—
CritPt20.9%—
EnigmaEval23.5%—
EBR-Bench28.6%—
Surface Evolver Bench87.5%—
Adversarial NLI—58.1%
Bench to the Future 30.14—
BIG-Bench Hard—61.6%
CommonsenseQA 2.0—57%
WinoGrande—81.6%

Math Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 78.4 (#13), GPT-3.5-turbo: 6.3 (#327)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8GPT-3.5-turbo
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)80%0%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202598.3%2.2%
LMArena Math14871142
FrontierMath Tier 456.1%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions91.8%—
ProofBench69%—
MATH Level 5—15.9%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)47.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)31.3%—
GSM8K—57.8%

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 61.3 (#29), GPT-3.5-turbo: 10.0 (#303)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8GPT-3.5-turbo
GPQA Diamond91%28%
LMArena Expert15021070
SimpleQA Verified53%—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—87.4%
BoolQ—87%
MMLU—71.4%
OpenBookQA—86%
TriviaQA—85.8%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.8: 42.9 (#26), GPT-3.5-turbo: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8GPT-3.5-turbo
LMArena Vision1294—
Blueprint-Bench 214.5%—
Furniture Assembly42.5%—
LMArena Document1475—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 55.2 (#33), GPT-3.5-turbo: 31.5 (#258)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8GPT-3.5-turbo
LMArena Non-English14501108
LMArena Chinese15071075
LMArena French14811118
LMArena German14721090
LMArena Japanese14401043
LMArena Korean14321019
LMArena Russian14741123
LMArena Spanish14661121

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 77.4 (#24), GPT-3.5-turbo: 57.9 (#262)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8GPT-3.5-turbo
LMArena Instruction Following14761119

Long Context Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#35), GPT-3.5-turbo: 34.0 (#254)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8GPT-3.5-turbo
LMArena Longer Query14831121

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 72.0 (#16), GPT-3.5-turbo: 25.3 (#305)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8GPT-3.5-turbo
LMArena Text14611125
LMArena Creative Writing14541092
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1840451
LMArena Multi-Turn14761117
EQ-Bench 41281—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than GPT-3.5-turbo?

Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 23.2 on the Noometry Index. GPT-3.5-turbo costs 13× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.8 or GPT-3.5-turbo?

GPT-3.5-turbo is cheaper. It lists at $0.50 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.8 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.8 or GPT-3.5-turbo better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.9 versus 23.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.8 does, with 1M tokens against 16K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT-3.5-turbo share?

28 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.8 has 65 scored results on Noometry and GPT-3.5-turbo has 44.

Related comparisons

Go deeper