Model comparison
Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4.8
Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Haiku 4.5 unranked; Claude Opus 4.8 #3
Evidence parity. Claude Haiku 4.5 and Claude Opus 4.8 share 4 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Claude Haiku 4.5; 49 to Claude Opus 4.8.
Updated July 12, 2026- Shared results
- 4
- Claude Haiku 4.5 only
- 1
- Claude Opus 4.8 only
- 49
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Haiku 4.5 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 4 shared benchmark results across 3 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Opus 4.8 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 85 to 54. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.8's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 53.9 against 4.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 5.903% to 47.241%.
Claude Opus 4.8 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.00 input / $5.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude Haiku 4.5. That is roughly 5.0x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.8 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Haiku 4.5 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Claude Opus 4.8 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Haiku 4.5.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Δ | Claude Opus 4.8 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Haiku 4.54.9 | Margin→ 49.0 | Claude Opus 4.853.9 |
| Coding | Claude Haiku 4.573.3 | Margin→ 3.1 | Claude Opus 4.876.4 |
| Agentic | Claude Haiku 4.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.880.3 |
| Knowledge | Claude Haiku 4.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.862.7 |
| Multimodal | Claude Haiku 4.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Claude Opus 4.877.0 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 5.903%B 47.241%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 41.3FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Haiku 4.5 scored 5.903%; Claude Opus 4.8 scored 47.241%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 2.083%B 31.250%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 29.2FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Haiku 4.5 scored 2.083%; Claude Opus 4.8 scored 31.250%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 73.3%B 88.6%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 15.3SWE-bench Verified: Claude Haiku 4.5 scored 73.3%; Claude Opus 4.8 scored 88.6%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Claude Opus 4.8 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Haiku 4.5$1 input / $5 output | Claude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 output | Claude Haiku 4.5 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Haiku 4.5Not available | Claude Opus 4.8Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Haiku 4.5Not available | Claude Opus 4.8Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Haiku 4.5200K | Claude Opus 4.81M | Claude Opus 4.8 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic20 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Claude Opus 4.8 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| JobBenchSource | 16.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 74.6% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 84.3% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 93.1% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | — | 83.4% | Not comparable |
| Finance Agent v2Source | — | 53.9% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1600 | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 82.2% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 59.9% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 72.97% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 47.2% | Not comparable |
| Tau2-TelecomSource | — | 94.4% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 55.0% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 21.1% | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | — | 20.6% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 1354 | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | — | 48.5% | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 44.0% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 7.5% | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 27.6% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 4.8 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Claude Opus 4.8 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 73.3% | 88.6% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 69.2% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 84.4% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultimodalSource | — | 38.4% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 74.6% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | — | 58.4% | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | — | 62.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 74.3% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | — | 58.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 53.5% | Not comparable |
| FrontierCodeSource | — | 46.5% | Not comparable |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | — | 84.6% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Claude Opus 4.8 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | — | 93.6% | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 93.6% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 57.9% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 49.8% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 55.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 92.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 45.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 27.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 46.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 35.9% | Not comparable |
MathClaude Opus 4.8 wins3 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Claude Opus 4.8 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| INCLUDESource | — | 87.6% | Not comparable |
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Claude Opus 4.8 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 62.2% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Claude Opus 4.8?
Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 85 to 54. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 5.903% and 47.241%.
Which is better for coding, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Claude Opus 4.8?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 76.4 versus 73.3. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Claude Opus 4.8?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 53.9 versus 4.9. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.