# Claude Opus 4.8 vs Codellama 34b Instruct

> Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-4-8-vs-codellama-34b-instruct
- Last updated: 2026-10-11
- Shared benchmarks: 10

## Summary

- They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher in 7 categories and Codellama 34b Instruct in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.8 leads 78.4 to 31.0.
- Codellama 34b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 4.8 | Codellama 34b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 60.7 | 30.8 |
| Rank | 13 | 287 |
| Context | 1M | — |
| Input $/M | $5 | — |
| Output $/M | $25 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 4.8: 59.9 (#12)
- Codellama 34b Instruct: 28.5 (#314)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Codellama 34b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1490 | 1046 |
| DeepSWE | 59% | — |
| FrontierCode | 46.5% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1556 | — |
| SciCode | 53.5% | — |
| GSO | 47.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 82.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 29% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 37.1% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,564 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 43.9% |
| MBPP+ | — | 56.3% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#11)
- Codellama 34b Instruct: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Codellama 34b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| 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: 64.7 (#16)
- Codellama 34b Instruct: 19.6 (#255)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Codellama 34b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1482 | 1032 |
| 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: 78.4 (#13)
- Codellama 34b Instruct: 31.0 (#230)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Codellama 34b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1487 | 1056 |
| 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: 61.3 (#29)
- Codellama 34b Instruct: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Codellama 34b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 91% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 53% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1502 | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 4.8: 42.9 (#26)
- Codellama 34b Instruct: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Codellama 34b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1294 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 14.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 42.5% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1475 | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 4.8: 55.2 (#33)
- Codellama 34b Instruct: 25.8 (#284)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Codellama 34b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1450 | 1011 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | 976 |
| LMArena French | 1481 | — |
| LMArena German | 1472 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1440 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1432 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1474 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1466 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 4.8: 77.4 (#24)
- Codellama 34b Instruct: 52.2 (#291)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Codellama 34b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1476 | 1028 |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#35)
- Codellama 34b Instruct: 30.9 (#284)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Codellama 34b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1483 | 1013 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 4.8: 72.0 (#16)
- Codellama 34b Instruct: 28.2 (#297)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Codellama 34b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1461 | 1066 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1032 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1476 | 1015 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1840 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1281 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Codellama 34b Instruct?

Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Claude Opus 4.8 or Codellama 34b Instruct better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.9 versus 28.5 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.8 and Codellama 34b Instruct share?

10 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.8 has 65 scored results on Noometry and Codellama 34b Instruct has 14.