Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.8 vs ZAYA1-74B-Preview
Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #3; ZAYA1-74B-Preview unranked
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.8 and ZAYA1-74B-Preview share 3 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 50 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 4 to ZAYA1-74B-Preview.
Updated July 12, 2026- Shared results
- 3
- Claude Opus 4.8 only
- 50
- ZAYA1-74B-Preview only
- 4
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. ZAYA1-74B-Preview only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 2 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 56. 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 53.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 93.6% to 57.3%. ZAYA1-74B-Preview does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
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 ZAYA1-74B-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 ZAYA1-74B-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 | ZAYA1-74B-Preview |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.876.4 | Margin← 23.2 | ZAYA1-74B-Preview53.2 |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.853.9 | Margin→ 22.5 | ZAYA1-74B-Preview76.4 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.862.7 | Margin→ 3.4 | ZAYA1-74B-Preview66.1 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.880.3 | MarginNo overlap | ZAYA1-74B-PreviewNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.877.0 | MarginNo overlap | ZAYA1-74B-PreviewNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 93.6%B 57.3%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 36.3GPQA: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 93.6%; ZAYA1-74B-Preview scored 57.3%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 88.6%B 53.2%Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 35.4SWE-bench Verified: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 88.6%; ZAYA1-74B-Preview scored 53.2%. 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 | ZAYA1-74B-Preview | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 output | ZAYA1-74B-Preview$0 input / $0 output | ZAYA1-74B-Preview has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.8Not available | ZAYA1-74B-PreviewNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.8Not available | ZAYA1-74B-PreviewNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.81M | ZAYA1-74B-Preview256K | Claude Opus 4.8 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic20 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | ZAYA1-74B-Preview | 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 |
| Tau2-AirlineSource | — | 56.1% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 4.8 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | ZAYA1-74B-Preview | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 88.6% | 53.2% | 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% | — | 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 v6Source | — | 65.7% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeZAYA1-74B-Preview wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | ZAYA1-74B-Preview | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 93.6% | 57.3% | Claude Opus 4.8 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 93.6% | 57.3% | 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 | — | 68.1% | Not comparable |
MathZAYA1-74B-Preview wins4 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | ZAYA1-74B-Preview | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| INCLUDESource | 87.6% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | ZAYA1-74B-Preview | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 62.2% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or ZAYA1-74B-Preview?
Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 85 to 56. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 93.6% and 57.3%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or ZAYA1-74B-Preview?
ZAYA1-74B-Preview has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 66.1 versus 62.7. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.8 or ZAYA1-74B-Preview?
Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 76.4 versus 53.2. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Claude Opus 4.8 or ZAYA1-74B-Preview?
ZAYA1-74B-Preview has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 76.4 versus 53.9. Claude Opus 4.8 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.