Skip to main content
BenchLM

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs o1

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.

85/100
Margin
30.0pts
← winning
o1
OpenAI
55/100
1 category wins1 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #3; o1 unranked

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.8 and o1 share 15 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 38 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 2 to o1.

Updated July 12, 2026
Shared results
15
Claude Opus 4.8 only
38
o1 only
2
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o1 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 6 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 55. 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 9.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 47.241% to 9.310%. o1 does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

o1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $15.00 input / $60.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude Opus 4.8. That is roughly 2.4x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.8 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for o1.

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 o1
CategoryClaude Opus 4.8Δo1
MathClaude Opus 4.853.9Margin← 44.6o19.3
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.862.7Margin→ 13.0o175.7
AgenticClaude Opus 4.880.3MarginNo overlapo1Not measured
CodingClaude Opus 4.876.4MarginNo overlapo1Not measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.877.0MarginNo overlapo1Not measured
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.8Not measuredMarginNo overlapo192.2

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.8B · o1

  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 47.241%B 9.310%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 37.9
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.8 scored 47.241%; o1 scored 9.310%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  2. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 93.6%B 75.7%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 17.9
    GPQA: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 93.6%; o1 scored 75.7%. 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 4.8o1Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 outputo1$15 input / $60 outputClaude Opus 4.8 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.8Not availableo198 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.8Not availableo132.29 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.81Mo1200KClaude Opus 4.8 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8o1Result
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%62.6%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
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8o1Result
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%39.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Terminal-Bench HardSource 58.3%12.9%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 53.5%35.8%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
FrontierCodeSource 46.5%—Not comparable
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source 84.6%—Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8o1Result
AA-LCRSource 67.7%59.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
CritPtSource 20.9%0.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Knowledgeo1 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8o1Result
GPQASource 93.6%75.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
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%23.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.0%74.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-HLESource 45.7%7.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 27.4%-10.5%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 46.6%34.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 35.9%69.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
MMLUSource —91.8%Not comparable
MathClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8o1Result
USAMO 2026Source 96.7%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 47.241%9.310%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 31.250%—Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8o1Result
INCLUDESource 87.6%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8o1Result
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 4.8o1Result
AA-IFBenchSource 62.2%70.3%o1 leads
IFEvalSource —92.2%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or o1?

Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 85 to 55. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 47.241% and 9.310%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or o1?

o1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.7 versus 62.7. Inside this category, AA-HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.8 or o1?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 53.9 versus 9.3. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) 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.