Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Solar Pro 3
Claude Opus 4.8 has enough public results to be ranked (#9); Solar Pro 3 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
UpstageSummary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher in 2 categories and Solar Pro 3 in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.8 leads 64.6 to 21.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 53.5% for Claude Opus 4.8 and 24.7% for Solar Pro 3.
- Solar Pro 3 is cheaper at $0.25 / $0.25 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.8.
- Claude Opus 4.8 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.8 | Solar Pro 3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Upstage |
| Noometry Index | 60.7 | 33.3 |
| Released | 2026-05-28 | 2026-01 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 131K |
| Max output | 128K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | $0.25 |
| Results tracked | 65 | 2 |
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: 60.2 (#9), Solar Pro 3: 34.2
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Solar Pro 3 |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 53.5% | 24.7% |
| DeepSWE | 59% | — |
| FrontierCode | 46.5% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1556 | — |
| GSO | 47.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 82.9% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1491 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,564 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#10), Solar Pro 3: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Solar Pro 3 |
|---|---|---|
| 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% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1204 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,787 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 64.6 (#14), Solar Pro 3: 21.7
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Solar Pro 3 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1481 | — |
| 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 | 158.3 | — |
| ForecastBench | 59.9 | — |
Math Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 78.2 (#11), Solar Pro 3: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Solar Pro 3 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 (#26), Solar Pro 3: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Solar Pro 3 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 91% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 53% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1501 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 43.2 (#20), Solar Pro 3: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Solar Pro 3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1295 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 14.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 42.5% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1475 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 55.4 (#31), Solar Pro 3: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Solar Pro 3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1450 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1509 | — |
| LMArena French | 1482 | — |
| LMArena German | 1470 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1440 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1432 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1476 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1470 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 77.6 (#22), Solar Pro 3: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Solar Pro 3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1476 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#37), Solar Pro 3: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Solar Pro 3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1482 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 72.1 (#17), Solar Pro 3: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Solar Pro 3 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1460 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1453 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1840 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1281 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1476 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Solar Pro 3?
Claude Opus 4.8 has enough public results to be ranked (#9); Solar Pro 3 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.8 or Solar Pro 3?
Solar Pro 3 is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $0.25 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.8 lists at $5 and $25.
Is Claude Opus 4.8 or Solar Pro 3 better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 60.2 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Opus 4.8 does, with 1M tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.8 and Solar Pro 3 share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.8 has 65 scored results on Noometry and Solar Pro 3 has 2.