AnthropicClaude Opus 4.8VSAnthropicClaude Sonnet 4.6
Our Take
Standardized reasoning and coding benchmarks are currently pending verification for one or both of these models. We recommend testing Claude Opus 4.8 and Claude Sonnet 4.6 directly in their respective provider playgrounds to see which fits your specific prompt styles best.
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
69.2%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+13.7%)
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)
N/Acomplex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
79.9%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)1.7x cheaper
$6.00Input: $3.00 | Output: $15.00Context Window
1.05M tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Claude Opus 4.8 vs Claude Sonnet 4.6
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is cheaper than Claude Opus 4.8. Claude Sonnet 4.6 has a blended cost of $6.00/1M tokens, which is about 1.7x cheaper than Claude Opus 4.8 at $10.00/1M tokens.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Claude Opus 4.8 and Claude Sonnet 4.6.
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.