Benchmark comparison

Opus 4.8 leads model benchmark leaderboard on performance and cost efficiency

Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 Max tops an 18-configuration benchmark comparison at 64.8% aggregate performance and $11.02 per task. OpenAI GPT-5.5 Extra High ranks second at 64.3% for $4.37 per task. Cursor Composer 2.5 ranks third at 63.2% for $0.55 per task — the strongest cost-eff

Executive lens

What this means for your role

Business leader

The top three models are within 1.6 percentage points of each other on aggregate performance, which means vendor lock-in and cost structure matter more than headline rankings for most business decisions.

Technology leader

Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8 Max posts the strongest results on coding (SWE-bench Verified 88.6), graduate-level math (USAMO 2026 96.7), and long-context tasks (GraphWalks 68.1), but trails Opus 4.7 on GPQA Diamond reasoning by 0.6 points.

Finance & risk

Cursor Composer 2.5 delivers near-top-three aggregate performance at $0.55 per task versus $11.02 for Claude Opus 4.8 Max — a 20x cost differential that materially changes the ROI calculus for high-volume workloads.

Operations & people

Teams running long-horizon agentic workflows should note that Claude Opus 4.7 outperforms Opus 4.8 on Vending-Bench 2 max-effort tasks by $7.9k in output value, indicating the newer model is not a straight upgrade for every operational use case.

Leaderboard detail

Models compared

Anthropic

Claude Opus 4.8 Max

Coding, advanced math, and long-context tasks where accuracy is the primary constraint

Aggregate performance rank: 1st of 18 (64.8%)Cost per task: $11.02SWE-bench Verified: 88.6SWE-bench Pro: 69.2SWE-bench Multilingual: 84.4USAMO 2026: 96.7GraphWalks long-context: 68.1GPQA Diamond: 93.6

Per-role read

Business leader: Ranks first across 18 configurations on aggregate performance. The premium per-task cost makes it best suited to high-value, low-volume work where accuracy failures are expensive.

Technology leader: Leads on SWE-bench Verified (88.6), SWE-bench Pro (69.2), SWE-bench Multilingual (84.4), USAMO 2026 (96.7), and GraphWalks long-context (68.1). Trails Opus 4.7 on GPQA Diamond by 0.6 points and on Vending-Bench 2 long-horizon agency tasks.

Finance & risk: At $11.02 per task, it is the most expensive configuration in the comparison. Cost-per-performance-point is unfavorable relative to GPT-5.5 Extra High and Cursor Composer 2.5 for budget-sensitive deployments.

Operations & people: Not the default upgrade path for agentic workflows — Opus 4.7 outperforms it on Vending-Bench 2 max-effort tasks by $7.9k. Validate against internal agentic task profiles before switching.

OpenAI

GPT-5.5 Extra High

High-accuracy tasks where per-task cost must stay below $5 and a single vendor relationship is preferred

Aggregate performance rank: 2nd of 18 (64.3%)Cost per task: $4.37

Per-role read

Business leader: Ranks second overall at 64.3% aggregate performance — 0.5 points behind Claude Opus 4.8 Max at less than half the per-task cost. A credible alternative for teams prioritising cost discipline without sacrificing top-tier accuracy.

Technology leader: Specific sub-benchmark scores were not available in the source material; aggregate performance is the only cited metric for this configuration.

Finance & risk: At $4.37 per task, GPT-5.5 Extra High offers a better cost-per-aggregate-performance-point than Claude Opus 4.8 Max. For high-volume production workloads, the saving is material.

Operations & people: Evidence on agentic and long-context task performance is limited to the aggregate score in the source data. Teams should run task-specific tests before deploying to operational workflows.

Cursor

Composer 2.5

Cost-sensitive coding and development workflows where near-frontier performance is acceptable at a fraction of the price

Aggregate performance rank: 3rd of 18 (63.2%)Cost per task: $0.55

Per-role read

Business leader: Third overall at 63.2% aggregate performance and $0.55 per task. The 1.6-point performance gap to first place costs 20x less per task — the strongest cost-efficiency position in the top three.

Technology leader: Sub-benchmark breakdown was not available in the source material. Aggregate performance positions it competitively with the top two models for general-purpose tasks.

Finance & risk: At $0.55 per task, Composer 2.5 is the clear cost leader among the top three. For teams running thousands of tasks daily, the savings versus Claude Opus 4.8 Max are significant at scale.

Operations & people: The low per-task cost makes Composer 2.5 practical for high-frequency automated workflows. Validate on representative internal tasks to confirm the 63.2% aggregate translates to acceptable accuracy on specific use cases.

Anthropic

Claude Opus 4.7

Long-horizon agentic tasks and graduate-level reasoning where Opus 4.8's regressions are a concern

GPQA Diamond: 94.2USAMO 2026: 69.3GraphWalks long-context: 40.3SWE-bench Verified: 87.6SWE-bench Pro: 64.3SWE-bench Multilingual: 80.5Bio-hard Mythos: 24.7Vending-Bench 2 max effort: $10.9k output value

Per-role read

Business leader: Predecessor to Opus 4.8 but retains a meaningful lead on two task categories. Teams should not retire it from production until Opus 4.8's agentic and reasoning regressions are confirmed immaterial to their workload.

Technology leader: Leads Opus 4.8 on GPQA Diamond (94.2 vs 93.6) and significantly outperforms on Vending-Bench 2 max-effort long-horizon agency ($10.9k vs $3.0k output value). Trails Opus 4.8 on coding and long-context benchmarks.

Finance & risk: No separate per-task cost was cited for Opus 4.7 in the source. The Vending-Bench 2 advantage of $7.9k in output value per task is a notable financial signal for agentic use cases.

Operations & people: Keep Opus 4.7 available for long-horizon agentic pipelines until Opus 4.8's Vending-Bench 2 regression is investigated. A controlled A/B on internal agentic tasks is the recommended next step.

Anthropic

Claude Sonnet 4.6 Max

Mid-tier tasks where budget is constrained and top-frontier accuracy is not required

Aggregate performance rank: 11th of 18 (49.0%)Cost per task: $3.09

Per-role read

Business leader: Ranks 11th of 18 at 49.0% aggregate performance and $3.09 per task. Positioned as a mid-market option within the Anthropic portfolio for teams that do not need Opus-level capability.

Technology leader: No sub-benchmark breakdown was available in the source. The 15.8-point aggregate gap versus Opus 4.8 Max is significant for accuracy-critical applications.

Finance & risk: At $3.09 per task, Sonnet 4.6 Max is less expensive than GPT-5.5 Extra High but delivers materially lower aggregate performance. The value case depends on task sensitivity to accuracy.

Operations & people: A practical default for internal tooling and lower-stakes automation. Test on representative tasks before using for compliance, legal, or financial output generation.

Anthropic

Claude Sonnet 4.6 Low

High-volume, low-stakes automation where cost minimisation is the primary objective

Aggregate performance rank: 17th of 18 (41.5%)Cost per task: $1.89

Per-role read

Business leader: Ranks 17th of 18 at 41.5% aggregate performance and $1.89 per task. Suitable for tasks where throughput volume justifies accepting lower accuracy.

Technology leader: No sub-benchmark breakdown was available in the source. The 23.3-point aggregate gap versus Opus 4.8 Max makes it unsuitable for tasks requiring frontier-level accuracy.

Finance & risk: The lowest-cost Anthropic configuration in the comparison at $1.89 per task. Only cost-effective relative to higher tiers if the accuracy loss is acceptable for the specific use case.

Operations & people: Reserve for high-volume, well-defined tasks with human review downstream. Not appropriate for open-ended reasoning, complex code generation, or document-level analysis.