Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Opus 4.8
92
LongCat-2.0
80
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #5 · LongCat-2.0 unranked
Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. LongCat-2.0 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Agentic
+9.3 difference
Coding
+16.9 difference
Claude Opus 4.8
LongCat-2.0
$5 / $25
$0.75 / $2.95
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1M
1M
Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. LongCat-2.0 only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.
Claude Opus 4.8 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 92 to 80. 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 coding, where it averages 76.4 against 59.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Pro, 69.2% to 59.5%.
Claude Opus 4.8 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.75 input / $2.95 output per 1M tokens for LongCat-2.0. That is roughly 8.5x on output cost alone.
Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 92 to 80. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Pro, where the scores are 69.2% and 59.5%.
Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 76.4 versus 59.5. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 80.1 versus 70.8. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.