Model comparison
1-bit Bonsai 8B vs Claude Opus 5
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: 1-bit Bonsai 8B unranked (Not scored); Claude Opus 5 #1 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. 1-bit Bonsai 8B and Claude Opus 5 share 0 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to 1-bit Bonsai 8B; 79 to Claude Opus 5.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- 1-bit Bonsai 8B only
- 0
- Claude Opus 5 only
- 79
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for 1-bit Bonsai 8B and Claude Opus 5 is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM does not have sourced benchmark coverage for 1-bit Bonsai 8B yet. This comparison is currently limited to metadata such as context window, reasoning mode, and pricing where available.
Claude Opus 5 is priced at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for 1-bit Bonsai 8B.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | 1-bit Bonsai 8B | Claude Opus 5 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | 1-bit Bonsai 8B$0 input / $0 output | Claude Opus 5$5 input / $25 output | 1-bit Bonsai 8B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | 1-bit Bonsai 8BNot available | Claude Opus 5Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | 1-bit Bonsai 8BNot available | Claude Opus 5Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | 1-bit Bonsai 8B64K | Claude Opus 5Not available | A complete context comparison is not available. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic24 benchmarks
| Benchmark | 1-bit Bonsai 8B | Claude Opus 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierBench v0.1Source | — | 43.3% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 90.8% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | — | 64.7% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 95.0% | Not comparable |
| DRACOSource | — | 88.6% | Not comparable |
| BrowseComp (10-agent, prerelease)Source | — | 93.6% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 70.6% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 85.8% | Not comparable |
| MCP-Atlas claim coverageSource | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | — | 23.58% | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Anthropic harness)Source | — | 93.74% | Not comparable |
| LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | — | 11.7% | Not comparable |
| LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)Source | — | 94.1% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1861 | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon-VerifiedSource | — | 80.6% | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass@3Source | — | 87.0% | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified Pass³Source | — | 73.1% | Not comparable |
| Toolathlon Verified avg. turnsSource | — | 23.5 turns | Not comparable |
| AutomationBenchSource | — | 26.0% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 55.3% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 68.0% | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 30.3% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 1720 | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
Coding12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | 1-bit Bonsai 8B | Claude Opus 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 96% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 79.2% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 89.5% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultimodalSource | — | 59.4% | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | — | 68.8% | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | — | 53.4% | Not comparable |
| FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource | — | 63.6% | Not comparable |
| ProgramBench (episode 1)Source | — | 83.0% | Not comparable |
| ProgramBenchSource | — | 93.0% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | — | 70.0% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 78.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 55.7% | Not comparable |
Reasoning5 benchmarks
Knowledge21 benchmarks
| Benchmark | 1-bit Bonsai 8B | Claude Opus 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | — | 64.7% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 56.3% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (raw)Source | — | 67.1% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench (length-adjusted)Source | — | 57.8% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench ProfessionalSource | — | 59.8% | Not comparable |
| HealthBench Professional (raw)Source | — | 73.4% | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)Source | — | 90.1% | Not comparable |
| BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)Source | — | 49.4% | Not comparable |
| SpatialBench VerifiedSource | — | 72.5% | Not comparable |
| SingleCellBenchSource | — | 60.6% | Not comparable |
| ProteinGym HardSource | — | 47.7% | Not comparable |
| Protein DesignSource | — | 42.5% | Not comparable |
| Organic chemistry V2Source | — | 61.6% | Not comparable |
| Protocols (troubleshooting)Source | — | 61.1% | Not comparable |
| Protocols (understanding)Source | — | 78.4% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 60.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 93.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 52.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 31.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 54.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 50.1% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multilingual3 benchmarks
Multimodal9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | 1-bit Bonsai 8B | Claude Opus 5 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chartography (no tools)Source | — | 29.6% | Not comparable |
| Chartography (tools)Source | — | 83.0% | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)Source | — | 0.366 | Not comparable |
| BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)Source | — | 0.821 | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (no tools)Source | — | 83.4% | Not comparable |
| GDP.pdf (tools)Source | — | 85.5% | Not comparable |
| OfficeQASource | — | 78.1% | Not comparable |
| OfficeQA ProSource | — | 66.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 84.7% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare 1-bit Bonsai 8B and Claude Opus 5 on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for 1-bit Bonsai 8B and Claude Opus 5 today?
1-bit Bonsai 8B: $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens Claude Opus 5: $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.