Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.8 vs MiniCPM5-1B
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #3; MiniCPM5-1B unranked
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.8 and MiniCPM5-1B share 1 comparable benchmark result. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 52 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 13 to MiniCPM5-1B.
Updated July 12, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Claude Opus 4.8 only
- 52
- MiniCPM5-1B only
- 13
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. MiniCPM5-1B 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 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 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 36. 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 33.1.
Claude Opus 4.8 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 131K for MiniCPM5-1B.
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 | MiniCPM5-1B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Opus 4.853.9 | Margin← 20.8 | MiniCPM5-1B33.1 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.862.7 | Margin← 18.6 | MiniCPM5-1B44.1 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.880.3 | MarginNo overlap | MiniCPM5-1BNot measured |
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.876.4 | MarginNo overlap | MiniCPM5-1BNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.877.0 | MarginNo overlap | MiniCPM5-1BNot measured |
| Inst. Following | Claude Opus 4.8Not measured | MarginNo overlap | MiniCPM5-1B58.5 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiniCPM5-1B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 output | MiniCPM5-1BNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.8Not available | MiniCPM5-1BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.8Not available | MiniCPM5-1BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.81M | MiniCPM5-1B131K | Claude Opus 4.8 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic20 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiniCPM5-1B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| BFCL v4Source | — | 25.1% | Not comparable |
Coding14 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiniCPM5-1B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 88.6% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
| LiveCodeBench ProSource | — | 22.7% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 33.5% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.8 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiniCPM5-1B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 93.6% | 26.3% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| 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 |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 48.9% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 70.1% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 23.1% | Not comparable |
MathClaude Opus 4.8 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiniCPM5-1B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| AIME 2025Source | — | 40.4% | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | — | 40.4% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 25.8% | Not comparable |
| MATH-500Source | — | 91.6% | Not comparable |
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | MiniCPM5-1B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| INCLUDESource | 87.6% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or MiniCPM5-1B?
Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 85 to 36.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or MiniCPM5-1B?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 62.7 versus 44.1. Inside this category, GPQA-D is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.8 or MiniCPM5-1B?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 53.9 versus 33.1. MiniCPM5-1B stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
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.