Skip to main content
BenchLM

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Composer 2

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.

85/100
Margin
23.0pts
← winning
62/100
2 category wins0 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #3; Composer 2 unranked

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.8 and Composer 2 share 3 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 50 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 2 to Composer 2.

Updated July 12, 2026
Shared results
3
Claude Opus 4.8 only
50
Composer 2 only
2
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Composer 2 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 2 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 62. 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 agentic, where it averages 80.3 against 61.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 74.6% to 61.7%.

Claude Opus 4.8 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.50 input / $2.50 output per 1M tokens for Composer 2. That is roughly 10.0x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.8 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Composer 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 4.8 and Composer 2
CategoryClaude Opus 4.8ΔComposer 2
AgenticClaude Opus 4.880.3Margin← 18.6Composer 261.7
CodingClaude Opus 4.876.4Margin← 18.4Composer 258.0
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.862.7MarginNo overlapComposer 2Not measured
MathClaude Opus 4.853.9MarginNo overlapComposer 2Not measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.877.0MarginNo overlapComposer 2Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.8B · Composer 2

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 74.6%B 61.7%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 12.9
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 74.6%; Composer 2 scored 61.7%. 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 4.8Composer 2Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 outputComposer 2$0.5 input / $2.5 outputComposer 2 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.8Not availableComposer 2Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.8Not availableComposer 2Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.81MComposer 2200KClaude Opus 4.8 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Composer 2Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%61.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
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 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Composer 2Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 88.6%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 69.2%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 84.4%73.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
SWE MultimodalSource 38.4%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%61.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
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
SWE-RebenchSource —58%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource —96.1%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Composer 2Result
AA-LCRSource 67.7%—Not comparable
CritPtSource 20.9%—Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Composer 2Result
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
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Composer 2Result
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 4.8Composer 2Result
INCLUDESource 87.6%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Composer 2Result
OfficeQA ProSource 66.2%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 87.9%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 89.9%—Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 80.5%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1281—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Composer 2Result
AA-IFBenchSource 62.2%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Composer 2?

Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 85 to 62. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 74.6% and 61.7%.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.8 or Composer 2?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 76.4 versus 58. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Composer 2?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 80.3 versus 61.7. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 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.