Coding
Directional only- Claude Haiku 4.5
- 73.3
- Claude Opus 4.8
- 81.1
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4.8
Updated August 26, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Claude Opus 4.8 has the higher public score, 76.45 versus 57.27, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
3 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Claude Opus 4.8
Claude Opus 4.8 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Claude Haiku 4.5
Claude Haiku 4.5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Claude Haiku 4.5
Claude Haiku 4.5 has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude Haiku 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.8 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
2 Claude Haiku 4.5 only
3 Shared
30 Claude Opus 4.8 only
- Shared results
- 3
- Claude Haiku 4.5 only
- 2
- Claude Opus 4.8 only
- 30
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
2 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Math
Directional only- Claude Haiku 4.5
- 4.9
- Claude Opus 4.8
- 53.9
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 3 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Agentic
Not comparable- Claude Haiku 4.5
- Not measured
- Claude Opus 4.8
- 80.3
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 3 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Haiku 4.5
- Not measured
- Claude Opus 4.8
- 72.1
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude Haiku 4.5
- Not measured
- Claude Opus 4.8
- 62.7
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Haiku 4.5
- Not measured
- Claude Opus 4.8
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Haiku 4.5
- Not measured
- Claude Opus 4.8
- 77.0
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Haiku 4.5
- Not measured
- Claude Opus 4.8
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Claude Opus 4.8 | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 73.3 | 81.1 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Math | 4.9 | 53.9 | Directional only2 vs 3 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | Not measured | 80.3 | Not comparable0 vs 3 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | 72.1 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | 62.7 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | 77.0 | Not comparable0 vs 2 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Math
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Math
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
Claude Haiku 4.5: 73.3%Claude Opus 4.8: 88.6%Normalized gap 15.3Claude Haiku 4.5 source Claude Opus 4.8 source
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude Haiku 4.5
- $0.0035
- Fits in one request
- Claude Opus 4.8
- $0.0175
- Fits in one request
Claude Haiku 4.5 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Haiku 4.5
- $0.065
- Fits in one request
- Claude Opus 4.8
- $0.325
- Fits in one request
Claude Haiku 4.5 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Haiku 4.5
- $0.09
- Does not fit in one request
- Claude Opus 4.8
- $1.35
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Claude Haiku 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.8 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Haiku 4.5Claude Opus 4.8
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Haiku 4.5
Claude Opus 4.8
API model ID
Claude Haiku 4.5
claude-haiku-4-5-20251001
Claude API pricingClaude Opus 4.8
claude-opus-4-8
Anthropic model overviewCached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude Haiku 4.5
$0.1 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude API pricingClaude Opus 4.8
Not published
Documented inputs
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not sourced
Claude Opus 4.8
text, image
Anthropic model overviewDocumented outputs
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not sourced
Claude Opus 4.8
Provider availability
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not sourced
Claude Opus 4.8
Generally Available · Claude API
Anthropic model overviewReasoning profile
Claude Haiku 4.5
Non-Reasoning
Claude Opus 4.8
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Haiku 4.5
Proprietary
Claude Opus 4.8
Proprietary
License
Claude Haiku 4.5
Proprietary
Claude Opus 4.8
Proprietary
Release date
Claude Haiku 4.5
2025-10-15
Claude Opus 4.8
2026-05-28
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- Both entries list Anthropic as the provider. Confirm endpoint, model ID, limits, and feature support before switching.
- Quality signal
- Claude Opus 4.8 has the higher public score, 76.45 versus 57.27, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.065 vs $0.325. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.09 vs $1.35.
- Context tradeoff
- Claude Opus 4.8 has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence35 rows
Agentic
JobBench
Claude Haiku 4.516.0%SourceClaude Opus 4.8—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 3.0
Claude Haiku 4.5—Claude Opus 4.821.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Haiku 4.5—Claude Opus 4.874.6%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Haiku 4.5—Claude Opus 4.884.3%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepSearchQA
Claude Haiku 4.5—Claude Opus 4.893.1%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Haiku 4.5—Claude Opus 4.883.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Finance Agent v2
Claude Haiku 4.5—Claude Opus 4.853.9%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Haiku 4.5—Claude Opus 4.882.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon
Claude Haiku 4.5—Claude Opus 4.859.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Haiku 4.5—Claude Opus 4.872.97%SourceNot directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Claude Haiku 4.5—Claude Opus 4.821.1%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Haiku 4.5—Claude Opus 4.820.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Haiku 4.573.3%SourceClaude Opus 4.888.6%SourceClaude Opus 4.8 leads this result
VulcanBench v3
Claude Haiku 4.576.2%SourceClaude Opus 4.8—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Haiku 4.5—Claude Opus 4.869.2%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Claude Haiku 4.5—Claude Opus 4.884.4%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multimodal
Claude Haiku 4.5—Claude Opus 4.838.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Haiku 4.5—Claude Opus 4.874.6%SourceNot directly comparable
cursorBench31
Claude Haiku 4.5—Claude Opus 4.858.4%SourceNot directly comparable
cursorBench32
Claude Haiku 4.5—Claude Opus 4.862.3%SourceNot directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Haiku 4.5—Claude Opus 4.846.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
Math
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Shared sourceClaude Haiku 4.55.903%Claude Opus 4.847.241%Claude Opus 4.8 leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Shared sourceClaude Haiku 4.52.083%Claude Opus 4.831.250%Claude Opus 4.8 leads this result
USAMO 2026
Claude Haiku 4.5—Claude Opus 4.896.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
INCLUDE
Claude Haiku 4.5—Claude Opus 4.887.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
OfficeQA Pro
Claude Haiku 4.5—Claude Opus 4.866.2%SourceNot directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Claude Haiku 4.5—Claude Opus 4.887.9%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Haiku 4.5—Claude Opus 4.889.9%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Claude Haiku 4.5—Claude Opus 4.880.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Claude Opus 4.8?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the higher public score, 76.45 versus 57.27, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
Which is better for coding, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Claude Opus 4.8?
The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Claude Opus 4.8?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Claude Opus 4.8?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0035 on Claude Haiku 4.5 and $0.0175 on Claude Opus 4.8; repository review costs $0.065 and $0.325; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.09 and $1.35. Claude Haiku 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Opus 4.8 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Claude Opus 4.8?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 26, 2026
Watch Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4.8
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.