Head-to-head
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Claude Opus 5: which AI model wins in 2026?
Claude Opus 4.8 ($25/1M out) and Claude Opus 5 ($25/1M out) are two of the most-used AI models in 2026. Across 7 community votes, Claude Opus 5 leads with 63% approval.
Quick verdict
On Reasoning, pick Claude Opus 5: the arena rates it 5/5 against 4.5/5 for Claude Opus 4.8. Both start at the same price: $25/1M out.
Line-by-line comparison
Strengths and weaknesses
Claude Opus 4.8
- SWE-Bench Pro 69.2% (vs 64.3% for Opus 4.7) and beats prior Opus models on CursorBench at every effort level; strong real-world reports on large refactors and multi-file bug hunts
- About 4x less likely than Opus 4.7 to let flaws in its own generated code pass unflagged; big jump on math reasoning (USAMO 2026: 96.7% vs 69.3%)
- 1M-token context and 128K output at unchanged $5/$25 pricing, with no long-context premium; batch API at 50% off ($2.50/$12.50)
- Fast mode (research preview) delivers up to 2.5x output speed at $10/$50, 3x cheaper than Opus 4.7's fast tier ($30/$150)
- Unique API features for agents: mid-conversation system messages that preserve the prompt cache, and Dynamic Workflows spawning parallel subagents in Claude Code
- 84% on Online-Mind2Web browser automation and record score on Legal Agent Benchmark (first model past 10% all-pass); strong enterprise knowledge work (Box reports 87% vs 77% internally)
- Turn-by-turn regressions reported: missed obvious instructions in planning docs, answering a narrow slice of the goal, and worse one-shot simple UI generation than 4.7
- Writing style criticized by heavy users: excessive hedging, over-cautious editing that 'cuts anything bold or funny' (Steve Yegge), and pushback loops even against well-evidenced theses
- Language-mixing quirk: users report random Chinese, Cyrillic, or Greek insertions in long research threads
- Visible quality degradation past ~200K tokens in hands-on use despite the advertised 1M window
- Vending-Bench regression: fell for scam suppliers about 30x more than 4.7 and negotiates worse (a side effect of stricter honesty alignment)
Claude Opus 5
- Ranked #1 in composite intelligence across 190 models on Artificial Analysis at launch, and 43.3% on Frontier-Bench v0.1 vs 34.4% for GPT-5.6 Sol and 33.7% for Claude Fable 5
- 3.9x better than GPT-5.6 Sol on ARC-AGI-3 novel reasoning (30.2% vs 7.8%), and Elo 1861 on GDPval-AA v2 economic knowledge work, ahead of Fable 5 (1747)
- 79.2% on SWE-bench Pro, within a point of Fable 5 (80.0%) and 10 points above Opus 4.8 (69.2%), at half Fable's price; Cursor's co-founder calls it 'near Fable 5 intelligence at Opus speed and cost'
- Same $5/$25 pricing as Opus 4.8 with a bigger window: 1M context is now the default and only tier, with 128K max output and prompt caching from 512 tokens
- Dual-use safety classifiers trigger 85% less often than on Fable 5, and the new default fallback mode avoids the silent mid-session refusals that plagued Fable's launch
- Self-verifies its work without being told, handles mid-conversation tool changes (beta) without busting the prompt cache, and ships day one on Claude.ai, the API, Bedrock, Vertex and Microsoft Foundry
- Notably slow and very verbose: 52.6 output tokens/s and 68 seconds to first token on Artificial Analysis, and it consumed ~100M output tokens during their eval vs a 63M median
- The verbosity is a real-world cost problem: CodeRabbit measured it reading ~50% more and writing ~65% more than reference frontier models per code-review call
- No actual price cut despite the 'cost-efficient' narrative: identical to Opus 4.8 ($5/$25), nearly GPT-5.6 money ($5/$30), and more than 2x comparable Gemini or Grok tiers
- Reviewers describe a 'brilliant but annoying' personality: over-verification, hedging, and occasional refusals of mundane tasks like resolving a merge conflict (Lenny's Newsletter field review)
- Breaking API change for Opus 4.8 migrants: thinking is on by default and cannot be disabled at xhigh or max effort (returns a 400); Fast mode ($10/$50, ~2.5x faster) is API-only, not on Bedrock or Vertex
Cast your verdict
One recommendation per tool per gladiator. It reshapes the crowd score everyone sees.
The arena’s verdict on Claude Opus 4.8
A drop-in upgrade for Opus 4.7 users: identical API surface and $5/$25 pricing with real gains on long-horizon agentic coding, code review, and enterprise analysis. Choose it if you run Claude Code, multi-file migrations, security audits, or agent pipelines that inspect, act, and verify over many steps. Skip it for quick one-shot UI snippets or prompts tightly tuned to 4.7 behavior, where users report regressions, and pick Sonnet 5 ($3/$15, intro $2/$10 through Aug 2026) if cost matters more than ceiling capability. Writers sensitive to hedging and over-cautious editing may find its style frustrating.
The arena’s verdict on Claude Opus 5
Claude Opus 5 is the sane default of the Series 5 range: most of Fable 5's intelligence (and more than Fable on Frontier-Bench and GDPval) at exactly half the token price, with classifiers that trigger 85% less often. If you migrated workloads to Fable 5 for capability but resent the bill or the false-positive refusals, move them here; if you are still on Opus 4.8, the upgrade is 10 SWE-bench Pro points for free. The two honest reasons to look elsewhere: latency and verbosity. At 52.6 tokens/s with 68s to first token it is a poor fit for interactive UX, and its token appetite quietly inflates real costs beyond the sticker price, so budget-sensitive high-volume pipelines still belong on Sonnet 5, Gemini or DeepSeek. Keep Fable 5 only for the longest autonomous runs where its slight SWE-bench Pro edge compounds.
What the crowd says
On Claude Opus 4.8
“Writing took a hit. It hedges everything and edits any bold or funny line out of my drafts. Also caught it answering a narrow slice of my planning doc and calling it done.”
“Threw USAMO-level math at it for a lark and it just grinds through. 96.7 vs 69 for 4.7 tracks with what I see. Same $5/$25, 1M context, no excuse not to switch.”
“Upgraded from 4.7 for a monorepo refactor and the difference is real. It actually flags its own sketchy code instead of shipping it. Multi-file bug hunts feel way less babysat.”
On Claude Opus 5
“The sticker price is unchanged but my invoice is not: it writes essays where Opus 4.8 wrote answers. 68 seconds to first token killed it for our support chat, we went back to Sonnet 5.”
“Fed it a 40-tab financial model with cross-sheet formulas and asked for a scenario deck. It got the edge cases the analysts missed. For document-heavy enterprise work this is the best model I have used.”
“We moved off Fable 5 because the bio classifier kept flagging our genomics tooling. Opus 5 does the same work at half the price and I have not seen a single silent reroute since.”
“Migrated our agents from Opus 4.8 the day it dropped. Same bill, and tasks that used to stall at the planning stage now just finish. The 10-point SWE-bench jump is not marketing, our merge queue feels it.”
Keep comparing
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Claude Opus 5?
The crowd currently sides with Claude Opus 5: 63% recommend it, versus 57% for Claude Opus 4.8 (7 votes). On Reasoning, Claude Opus 5 rates higher (5/5 vs 4.5/5). The right pick depends on your use case. The line-by-line comparison on this page breaks down pricing, key specs and arena ratings.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.8 or Claude Opus 5?
They cost the same to start: both begin at $25/1M out.
How much do Claude Opus 4.8 and Claude Opus 5 cost per 1M tokens?
Claude Opus 4.8: $5/1M in per 1M input tokens, $25/1M out per 1M output tokens. Claude Opus 5: $5/1M in per 1M input tokens, $25/1M out per 1M output tokens.