Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Solar Pro4
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 42.1 on the Noometry Index. Solar Pro4 costs 19× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
UpstageSummary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher in 8 categories and Solar Pro4 in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.8 leads 78.4 to 38.8.
- Solar Pro4 is cheaper at $0.30 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.8.
- Claude Opus 4.8 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 524K.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.8 | Solar Pro4 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Upstage |
| Noometry Index | 60.7 | 42.1 |
| Released | 2026-05-28 | 2026-08-06 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 524K |
| Max output | 128K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | $0.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | $1.20 |
| Results tracked | 65 | 18 |
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), Solar Pro4: 40.1 (#149)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Solar Pro4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1556 | 1371 |
| LMArena Coding | 1490 | 1437 |
| DeepSWE | 59% | — |
| FrontierCode | 46.5% | — |
| SciCode | 53.5% | — |
| GSO | 47.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 82.9% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,564 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#11), Solar Pro4: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Solar Pro4 |
|---|---|---|
| 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: 64.7 (#16), Solar Pro4: 28.5 (#104)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Solar Pro4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1482 | 1399 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 72.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 64.8% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 88.8% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 91.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 92.5% | — |
| CritPt | 20.9% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 34% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 23.5% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 28.6% | — |
| 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 Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 78.4 (#13), Solar Pro4: 38.8 (#128)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Solar Pro4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1487 | 1416 |
| 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% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 47.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 31.3% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 61.3 (#29), Solar Pro4: 39.8 (#129)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Solar Pro4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1502 | 1427 |
| GPQA Diamond | 91% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 53% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 42.9 (#26), Solar Pro4: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Solar Pro4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1294 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 14.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 42.5% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1475 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 55.2 (#33), Solar Pro4: 48.7 (#139)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Solar Pro4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1450 | 1361 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | 1415 |
| LMArena French | 1481 | 1397 |
| LMArena German | 1472 | 1364 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1440 | 1309 |
| LMArena Korean | 1432 | 1382 |
| LMArena Russian | 1474 | 1360 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1466 | 1401 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 77.4 (#24), Solar Pro4: 72.7 (#132)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Solar Pro4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1476 | 1377 |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#35), Solar Pro4: 42.1 (#130)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Solar Pro4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1483 | 1381 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 72.0 (#16), Solar Pro4: 56.5 (#138)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Solar Pro4 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1461 | 1386 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1316 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1476 | 1385 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1840 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1281 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Solar Pro4?
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 42.1 on the Noometry Index. Solar Pro4 costs 19× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.8 or Solar Pro4?
Solar Pro4 is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.8 lists at $5 and $25.
Is Claude Opus 4.8 or Solar Pro4 better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.9 versus 40.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Opus 4.8 does, with 1M tokens against 524K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.8 and Solar Pro4 share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.8 has 65 scored results on Noometry and Solar Pro4 has 18.