Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Step 3.7 Flash

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 24 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

77.8/100
Margin
27.0pts
← winning
50.76/100
2 category wins0 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #1; Step 3.7 Flash unranked

BenchAlign evidence: Claude Opus 4.8 supported; Step 3.7 Flash estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.8 and Step 3.7 Flash share 24 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 29 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 6 to Step 3.7 Flash.

Updated July 16, 2026
Shared results
24
Claude Opus 4.8 only
29
Step 3.7 Flash only
6
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Step 3.7 Flash only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 24 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, 84 to 57. 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 81.1 against 56.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 74.6% 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 $0.20 input / $1.15 output per 1M tokens for Step 3.7 Flash. That is roughly 21.7x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.8 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 256K for Step 3.7 Flash.

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 Step 3.7 Flash
CategoryClaude Opus 4.8ΔStep 3.7 Flash
CodingClaude Opus 4.881.1Margin← 24.8Step 3.7 Flash56.3
AgenticClaude Opus 4.880.3Margin← 13.9Step 3.7 Flash66.4
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.862.7MarginNo overlapStep 3.7 FlashNot measured
MathClaude Opus 4.853.9MarginNo overlapStep 3.7 FlashNot measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.877.0MarginNo overlapStep 3.7 FlashNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Opus 4.8B · Step 3.7 Flash

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 74.6%B 59.5%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 15.1
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 74.6%; Step 3.7 Flash scored 59.5%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 69.2%B 56.3%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 12.9
    SWE-bench Pro: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 69.2%; Step 3.7 Flash scored 56.3%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

  3. BrowseComp

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 84.3%B 75.8%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 8.5
    BrowseComp: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 84.3%; Step 3.7 Flash scored 75.8%. 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 4.8Step 3.7 FlashComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 outputStep 3.7 Flash$0.2 input / $1.15 outputStep 3.7 Flash has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.8Not availableStep 3.7 FlashNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.8Not availableStep 3.7 FlashNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.81MStep 3.7 Flash256KClaude Opus 4.8 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Step 3.7 FlashResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%59.5%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
BrowseCompSource 84.3%75.8%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
DeepSearchQASource 93.1%92.8%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 83.4%—Not comparable
Finance Agent v2Source 53.9%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 16001017Claude Opus 4.8 leads
MCP AtlasSource 82.2%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 59.9%49.5%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Gert LabsSource 72.97%51.57%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 47.2%21.5%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 94.4%98.5%Step 3.7 Flash leads
GDPval-AASource 55.0%25.9%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
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
Claw-EvalSource —67.1%Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource —47.2%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —14.8%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Step 3.7 FlashResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 88.6%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 69.2%56.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
SWE MultilingualSource 84.4%—Not comparable
SWE MultimodalSource 38.4%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%59.5%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
cursorBench31Source 58.4%—Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 62.3%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 74.3%39.6%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Terminal-Bench HardSource 58.3%35.6%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 53.5%40.0%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
FrontierCodeSource 46.5%—Not comparable
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source 84.6%—Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Step 3.7 FlashResult
AA-LCRSource 67.7%63.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
CritPtSource 20.9%2.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Step 3.7 FlashResult
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%30.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.0%80.9%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-HLESource 45.7%19.9%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 27.4%-37.5%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 46.6%25.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 35.9%84.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Step 3.7 FlashResult
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 4.8Step 3.7 FlashResult
INCLUDESource 87.6%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Step 3.7 FlashResult
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 12741218Claude Opus 4.8 leads
SimpleVQASource —79.2%Not comparable
V*Source —95.3%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —75.3%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Step 3.7 FlashResult
AA-IFBenchSource 62.2%67.3%Step 3.7 Flash leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Step 3.7 Flash?

Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 84 to 57. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 74.6% and 59.5%.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.8 or Step 3.7 Flash?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 81.1 versus 56.3. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Step 3.7 Flash?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 80.3 versus 66.4. Inside this category, GDPval-AA 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 16, 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.