Claude Opus 4.8 vs Claude Sonnet 4.6
Select two models to compare their coding performance, pricing, and features.
Key Takeaways
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.8 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Coding Index | 107.83 | — Score awaiting verification |
| Coding tier | A+ | — |
| Input Price | $5/1M | $3/1M |
| Output Price | $25/1M | $15/1M |
| Context Window | 1M | 1M |
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 = 100. The index reflects two shared tests, not capability multiples or statistically established gaps.
Verdict
Models awaiting tier review remain in the catalog. An unassigned tier does not mean weaker capability.
Capabilities & Use Cases Comparison
Claude Opus 4.8 Tier A+
- •Complex architecture
- •Multi-file refactoring
- •Code review
- •Claude Code
- •Best-in-class code reasoning and architecture design
- •Excels at complex multi-file refactoring
- •Superior at understanding large codebases
- •Strong at following nuanced instructions
Claude Sonnet 4.6 Tier —
- •Claude Code
- •Code review
- •Debugging
- •Refactoring
- •Excellent code generation quality
- •Strong at code review and debugging
- •Great at following detailed instructions
- •Handles large context well
Claude Opus 4.8
Benchmark evidence and ranking method · Claude Opus 4.8
Cross-checked
Terminal-Bench 4.0 · Claude Code · max: 23.64% · 95% CI ± 3.56%
Artificial Analysis · Claude Opus 4.8 (Adaptive Reasoning, Max Effort)
Test configuration: max
Terminal-Bench 2.1: 84.64% · SciCode: 54.40%
LiveBench · 2026-06-25 · claude-opus-4-8-max-effort
Coding: 81.83% · Agentic Coding: 50.50%
ModelRank assigns editorial tiers using public coding evidence, not automatic index thresholds or statistically proven classes. Price, speed, context size and sponsorship do not affect tiers.
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 = 100. The index reflects two shared tests, not capability multiples or statistically established gaps.
Results reflect particular model configurations. Agent harnesses, reasoning effort, tools, budgets and tasks may differ. Close indices do not establish superiority. B describes a relative position in this selected group, not an inability to code.
Data checked: 2026-09-10. Snapshot date is the retrieval date, not necessarily the evaluation date.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Results reflect particular model configurations. Agent harnesses, reasoning effort, tools, budgets and tasks may differ. Close indices do not establish superiority. B describes a relative position in this selected group, not an inability to code.
API cost estimate
1M input + 200K output (USD):
Claude Opus 4.8: $10.0000
Claude Sonnet 4.6: $6.0000
Estimates use the displayed channel and time band; DeepSeek uses peak rates. Cache discounts, tool fees, long-context price tiers and uncounted additional tokens are excluded.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which model is better for coding: Claude Opus 4.8 or Claude Sonnet 4.6?
A comparable reference index is unavailable for one or both models; no index-based winner is assigned. Editorial tiers: Claude Opus 4.8 = A+; Claude Sonnet 4.6 = No tier assessment yet. Tiers are separate editorial assessments and do not establish a reliable order within a tier.
How do Claude Opus 4.8 and Claude Sonnet 4.6 compare in API pricing and costs?
Claude Opus 4.8: $5/1M input, $25/1M output (OpenRouter quote); Claude Sonnet 4.6: $3/1M input, $15/1M output (OpenRouter quote). 1M input + 200K output (USD): $10.0000 vs $6.0000.
What are the context window sizes of Claude Opus 4.8 and Claude Sonnet 4.6?
Claude Opus 4.8 provides a 1,000,000 token context window, while Claude Sonnet 4.6 provides 1,000,000 tokens.