Skip to main content
BenchLM

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) vs Claude Opus 4.8

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 32 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.

76/100
Margin
9.0pts
winning →
85/100
0 category wins4 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) #8; Claude Opus 4.8 #3

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Claude Opus 4.8 share 32 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 6 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive); 21 to Claude Opus 4.8.

Updated July 12, 2026
Shared results
32
Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only
6
Claude Opus 4.8 only
21
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 32 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 4 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 76. 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 multimodal & grounded, where it averages 77 against 65.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is OfficeQA Pro, 43.6% to 66.2%.

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 scores and score margins for Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) and Claude Opus 4.8
CategoryClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)ΔClaude Opus 4.8
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)65.1Margin→ 11.9Claude Opus 4.877.0
AgenticClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.1Margin→ 5.2Claude Opus 4.880.3
CodingClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)73.0Margin→ 3.4Claude Opus 4.876.4
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)60.0Margin→ 2.7Claude Opus 4.862.7
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)75.8MarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.8Not measured
MathClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not measuredMarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.853.9

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)B · Claude Opus 4.8

  1. OfficeQA Pro

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 43.6%B 66.2%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 22.6
    OfficeQA Pro: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 43.6%; Claude Opus 4.8 scored 66.2%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  2. OSWorld-Verified

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 78%B 83.4%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 5.4
    OSWorld-Verified: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 78%; Claude Opus 4.8 scored 83.4%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  3. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 69.4%B 74.6%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 5.2
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 69.4%; Claude Opus 4.8 scored 74.6%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  4. BrowseComp

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 79.3%B 84.3%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 5
    BrowseComp: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 79.3%; Claude Opus 4.8 scored 84.3%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  5. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 64.3%B 69.2%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 4.9
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) scored 64.3%; Claude Opus 4.8 scored 69.2%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Opus 4.8Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)$5 input / $25 outputClaude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 outputListed prices are equal.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableClaude Opus 4.8Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Not availableClaude Opus 4.8Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)1MClaude Opus 4.81MListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Opus 4.8Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%74.6%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
BrowseCompSource 79.3%84.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
MCP AtlasSource 77.3%82.2%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 78%83.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
CyberGymSource 73.1%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 44.4%47.2%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Tau2-TelecomSource 88.6%94.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
GDPval-AASource 50.0%55.0%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
GDPval-AASource 15001600Claude Opus 4.8 leads
OSWorld 2.0Source 18.2%20.6%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
JobBenchSource 45.9%—Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource —93.1%Not comparable
Finance Agent v2Source —53.9%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —59.9%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —72.97%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource —21.1%Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource —1354Not 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 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Opus 4.8Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 87.6%88.6%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
SWE-bench ProSource 64.3%69.2%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 69.4%74.6%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA Coding IndexSource 73.6%74.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Terminal-Bench HardSource 51.5%58.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 54.5%53.5%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
SWE MultilingualSource —84.4%Not comparable
SWE MultimodalSource —38.4%Not comparable
cursorBench31Source —58.4%Not comparable
cursorBench32Source —62.3%Not comparable
FrontierCodeSource —46.5%Not comparable
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source —84.6%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Opus 4.8Result
MRCR v2 128K-256KSource 59.2%—Not comparable
ARC-AGI-2Source 75.8%—Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 70.3%67.7%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
CritPtSource 12.0%20.9%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Opus 4.8Result
GPQASource 94.2%93.6%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
GPQA-DSource 94.2%93.6%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
HLESource 54.7%57.9%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 46.9%49.8%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 53.5%55.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.4%92.0%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-HLESource 39.6%45.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 26.2%27.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.8%46.6%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 36.2%35.9%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Opus 4.8Result
FrontierMath (legacy)Source 43.8%—Not comparable
USAMO 2026Source —96.7%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source —47.241%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source —31.250%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Opus 4.8Result
INCLUDESource —87.6%Not comparable
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Opus 4.8Result
OfficeQA ProSource 43.6%66.2%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
CharXivSource 91%89.9%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 82.1%80.5%Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
AA-MMMU-ProSource 78.8%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13351281Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) leads
ScreenSpot ProSource —87.9%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive)Claude Opus 4.8Result
AA-IFBenchSource 58.6%62.2%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Claude Opus 4.8?

Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 85 to 76. The biggest single separator in this matchup is OfficeQA Pro, where the scores are 43.6% and 66.2%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Claude Opus 4.8?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 62.7 versus 60. Inside this category, AA-HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Claude Opus 4.8?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 76.4 versus 73. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench Hard is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Claude Opus 4.8?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 80.3 versus 75.1. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 (Adaptive) or Claude Opus 4.8?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 77 versus 65.1. Inside this category, Design Arena Website is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 12, 2026

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.