Claude Opus 4.8 vs Claude Sonnet 5: Which Is Better for Coding? (2026)

head-to-head

Metric	Claude Opus 4.8	Claude Sonnet 5
SWE-bench Verified	~86%	85.2%
SWE-bench Pro	69.2%	63.2%
Terminal-Bench	~82.7% (TB2.1)	80.4% (TB2.1)
Input $ / 1M	$5	$2
Context	1M	1M
Open weights	No	No
Maker	Anthropic	Anthropic

when to pick each

Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if

The hardest agentic refactors and long, autonomous multi-file tasks where every point of accuracy saves a human review cycle.

Pick Claude Sonnet 5 if

The best closed-model value — near-Opus scores at ~2.5× less, and the default daily driver for most developers.

Full reviewsClaude Sonnet 5, decoded

Ranked on our AI Coding Leaderboard, updated 2026-07-02. Scores are confirmed against primary sources; prices are per 1M input tokens and can change.

Primary sources

AnthropicAnthropic — Claude Opus 4.8 — Anthropic-reported; independent evals (vals.ai) track within ~1 point.
AnthropicGENZ TECH — Claude Sonnet 5, decoded — Anthropic-reported. Intro pricing $2/$10 per 1M through Aug 31, 2026, then $3/$15.
BenchmarkSWE-bench — the real-GitHub-issue benchmark

$ quick-answers

Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Claude Sonnet 5 for coding?

Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on SWE-bench Verified (~86% vs 85.2%) and SWE-bench Pro, so it is the stronger coder on current benchmarks. Claude Sonnet 5 wins on price.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.8 or Claude Sonnet 5?

Claude Sonnet 5 is cheaper at $2 per 1M input tokens versus $5.

Should I use Claude Opus 4.8 or Claude Sonnet 5?

Claude Opus 4.8 for the hardest, highest-stakes coding; Claude Sonnet 5 when you want the best value or are running high volume. Both are frontier-class in 2026.