AnthropicClaude Opus 4.8VSAnthropicClaude Opus 5
Our Take
We recommend choosing Claude Opus 5 because it outperforms or matches Claude Opus 4.8 across reasoning, coding, and context capacity while being cheaper or equal in cost. Choose Claude Opus 5 for superior overall value.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Coding Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the SWE-bench Pro benchmark. Claude Opus 5 scored 79.2%, while Claude Opus 4.8 scored 69.2%.
Reasoning Benchmarks: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. Claude Opus 5 scored 93.7%, while Claude Opus 4.8 scored 93.6%.
Context Window: Claude Opus 5 supports a 1M context window compared to 1M for Claude Opus 4.8.
Cost Comparison: Claude Opus 5 blended CPM is $5/$25 compared to $5/$25 for Claude Opus 4.8.
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
69.2%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
93.6%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$10.00Input: $5.00 | Output: $25.00Context Window
1.05M tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+10.0%)
79.2%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+0.1%)
93.7%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
$10.00Input: $5.00 | Output: $25.00Context Window
1.05M tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Claude Opus 4.8 vs Claude Opus 5
Both Claude Opus 4.8 and Claude Opus 5 cost the same, with a blended cost of $10.00 per 1 million tokens.
Claude Opus 5 is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 79.2% on swe-bench-pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning) compared to Claude Opus 4.8 which scores 69.2%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Claude Opus 4.8 and Claude Opus 5.
Do you want to find a model for your constraints?
Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.