Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Hy3 Preview
Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #3; Hy3 Preview unranked
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.8 and Hy3 Preview share 19 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 34 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 2 to Hy3 Preview.
Updated July 12, 2026- Shared results
- 19
- Claude Opus 4.8 only
- 34
- Hy3 Preview only
- 2
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Hy3 Preview only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 19 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 3 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 knowledge, where it averages 62.7 against 33.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 57.9% to 25.5%.
Claude Opus 4.8 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Hy3 Preview. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.8 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Hy3 Preview.
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 Opus 4.8 | Δ | Hy3 Preview |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.862.7 | Margin← 28.9 | Hy3 Preview33.8 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.880.3 | Margin← 25.9 | Hy3 Preview54.4 |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.876.4 | Margin← 14.8 | Hy3 Preview61.6 |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.853.9 | MarginNo overlap | Hy3 PreviewNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.877.0 | MarginNo overlap | Hy3 PreviewNot measured |
| Inst. Following | Claude Opus 4.8Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Hy3 Preview63.1 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 57.9%B 25.5%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 32.4HLE: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 57.9%; Hy3 Preview scored 25.5%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 74.6%B 54.4%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 20.2Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 74.6%; Hy3 Preview scored 54.4%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 88.6%B 74.4%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 14.2SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 88.6%; Hy3 Preview scored 74.4%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 93.6%B 87.2%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 6.4GPQA: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 93.6%; Hy3 Preview scored 87.2%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.8 | Hy3 Preview | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 output | Hy3 Preview$0 input / $0 output | Hy3 Preview has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.8Not available | Hy3 PreviewNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.8Not available | Hy3 PreviewNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.81M | Hy3 Preview256K | Claude Opus 4.8 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Opus 4.8 wins19 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Hy3 Preview | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 74.6% | 54.4% | 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% | 36.91% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 47.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Tau2-TelecomSource | 94.4% | 92.7% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| 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 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Hy3 Preview | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 88.6% | 74.4% | 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% | 54.4% | 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% | 34.1% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 53.5% | 41.2% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| FrontierCodeSource | 46.5% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | 84.6% | — | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 41.2% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.8 wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Hy3 Preview | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 93.6% | 87.2% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 93.6% | 87.2% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| HLESource | 57.9% | 25.5% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 49.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 55.7% | 33.6% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 92.0% | 86.7% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 45.7% | 25.5% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 27.4% | -34.6% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 46.6% | 28.0% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 35.9% | 86.9% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
Math3 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Hy3 Preview | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| INCLUDESource | 87.6% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Hy3 Preview?
Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 85 to 54. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 57.9% and 25.5%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Hy3 Preview?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 62.7 versus 33.8. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.8 or Hy3 Preview?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 76.4 versus 61.6. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench Hard is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Hy3 Preview?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 80.3 versus 54.4. Inside this category, Gert Labs 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.