# Claude Opus 4.1 vs Claude Opus 4.8

> Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 41.0 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-4-1-vs-claude-opus-4-8
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 37

## Summary

- They share 37 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 0 categories and Claude Opus 4.8 in 10 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.8 leads 78.4 to 22.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 12.6% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 80% for Claude Opus 4.8.
- Claude Opus 4.8 is cheaper at $5 / $25 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
- Claude Opus 4.8 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 4.1 | Claude Opus 4.8 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Anthropic |
| Noometry Index | 41.0 | 60.7 |
| Rank | 142 | 13 |
| Context | 200K | 1M |
| Input $/M | $15 | $5 |
| Output $/M | $75 | $25 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 4.1: 44.4 (#73)
- Claude Opus 4.8: 59.9 (#12)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Claude Opus 4.8 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | 1556 |
| WeirdML | 45.9% | 82.9% |
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | 1490 |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | 1,564 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | — |
| DeepSWE | — | 59% |
| FrontierCode | — | 46.5% |
| SciCode | — | 53.5% |
| GSO | — | 47.1% |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 4.1: 35.0 (#41)
- Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#11)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Claude Opus 4.8 |
|---|---|---|
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | 50.2% |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | 1204 |
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | — |
| APEX-Agents | — | 48.9% |
| OSWorld 2.0 | — | 20.6% |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | — | 8.3% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 39.7% |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| PostTrainBench | — | 33.8% |
| GBAEval | — | 70.9% |
| GDP.pdf | — | 24% |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 5,787 |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 4.1: 32.2 (#76)
- Claude Opus 4.8: 64.7 (#16)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Claude Opus 4.8 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 60% | 64.8% |
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | 34% |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | 23.5% |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | 28.6% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1482 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | 36% |
| DTBench | 80% | 94.9% |
| LMCA | 37.1% | 57.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.12 | 158.21 |
| ForecastBench | 62 | 59.9 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 72.1% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 88.8% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 91.1% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 92.5% |
| CritPt | — | 20.9% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 87.5% |
| Bench to the Future 3 | — | 0.14 |

## Math

- Claude Opus 4.1: 22.3 (#277)
- Claude Opus 4.8: 78.4 (#13)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Claude Opus 4.8 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | 80% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | 56.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | 98.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1431 | 1487 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | 47.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | 31.3% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 91.8% |
| ProofBench | — | 69% |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 4.1: 42.0 (#101)
- Claude Opus 4.8: 61.3 (#29)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Claude Opus 4.8 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | 91% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1502 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 53% |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 4.1: 26.8 (#119)
- Claude Opus 4.8: 42.9 (#26)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Claude Opus 4.8 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1294 |
| VPCT | 35% | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | — | 14.5% |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 42.5% |
| LMArena Document | — | 1475 |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 4.1: 52.0 (#95)
- Claude Opus 4.8: 55.2 (#33)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Claude Opus 4.8 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1450 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | 1507 |
| LMArena French | 1431 | 1481 |
| LMArena German | 1413 | 1472 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | 1440 |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | 1432 |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | 1474 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1466 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 4.1: 75.6 (#58)
- Claude Opus 4.8: 77.4 (#24)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Claude Opus 4.8 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1435 | 1476 |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#63)
- Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#35)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Claude Opus 4.8 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1483 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 4.1: 62.4 (#74)
- Claude Opus 4.8: 72.0 (#16)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Claude Opus 4.8 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1461 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | 1454 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1476 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1840 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1281 |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than Claude Opus 4.8?

Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 41.0 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or Claude Opus 4.8?

Claude Opus 4.8 is cheaper. It lists at $5 per million input tokens and $25 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.

### Is Claude Opus 4.1 or Claude Opus 4.8 better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.9 versus 44.4 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.8 does, with 1M tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and Claude Opus 4.8 share?

37 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and Claude Opus 4.8 has 65.