Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Nova 2.0 Pro Preview
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher in 3 categories and Nova 2.0 Pro Preview in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.8 leads 64.7 to 22.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GDP.pdf: 24% for Claude Opus 4.8 and 2% for Nova 2.0 Pro Preview.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.8 | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Amazon |
| Noometry Index | 60.7 | 33.4 |
| Released | 2026-05-28 | 2025-12-02 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | — |
| Results tracked | 65 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 59.9 (#12), Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: 40.8 (#133)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 53.5% | 42.7% |
| DeepSWE | 59% | — |
| FrontierCode | 46.5% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1556 | — |
| GSO | 47.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 82.9% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1490 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,564 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#11), Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: 21.9 (#136)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview |
|---|---|---|
| GDP.pdf | 24% | 2% |
| APEX-Agents | 48.9% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 20.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 8.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 39.7% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 50.2% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 33.8% | — |
| GBAEval | 70.9% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1204 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,787 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 64.7 (#16), Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: 22.4 (#194)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 20.9% | 0% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 72.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 64.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 88.8% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 91.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 92.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 34% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 23.5% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 28.6% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1482 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 36% | — |
| DTBench | 94.9% | — |
| LMCA | 57.5% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 87.5% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.14 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 158.21 | — |
| ForecastBench | 59.9 | — |
Math Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 78.4 (#13), Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 80% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 56.1% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 91.8% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 69% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1487 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 47.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 31.3% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 61.3 (#29), Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 91% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 53% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1502 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 42.9 (#26), Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1294 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 14.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 42.5% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1475 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 55.2 (#33), Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1450 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | — |
| LMArena French | 1481 | — |
| LMArena German | 1472 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1440 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1432 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1474 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1466 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 77.4 (#24), Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1476 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#35), Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1483 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 72.0 (#16), Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Nova 2.0 Pro Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1461 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1840 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1281 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1476 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Nova 2.0 Pro Preview?
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 4.8 or Nova 2.0 Pro Preview better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.9 versus 40.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.8 and Nova 2.0 Pro Preview share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.8 has 65 scored results on Noometry and Nova 2.0 Pro Preview has 3.