Claude Opus 4.8 vs Nova 2.0 Pro Preview
Wins 5 of 6 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Long documents
Wins 1 of 6 areas
Following instructions
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger all-rounder.Nova 2.0 Pro Preview is cheaper and better at following instructions.
Scores updated · 17 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the six areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- CodingWriting and fixing software30Claude Opus 4.83 of 3 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking30Claude Opus 4.83 of 3 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own20Claude Opus 4.82 of 2 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up20Claude Opus 4.82 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Opus 4.81 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked01Nova 2.0 Pro Preview1 of 1 test
Long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
Nova 2.0 Pro Preview costs 63% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Claude Opus 4.8 pulls ahead
- Command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench 2.1+55points ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+51.7points ahead
- Very hard expert questions across many subjectsHumanity's Last Exam+39.3points ahead
Where Nova 2.0 Pro Preview pulls ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+16.8points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 17 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingClaude Opus 4.8
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Claude Opus 4.8 by 5584.629.6+55
- Terminal-Bench HardClaude Opus 4.8 by 34.158.324.2+34.1
- SciCodeClaude Opus 4.8 by 11.754.442.7+11.7
AgentsClaude Opus 4.8
- GDPValClaude Opus 4.8 by 47.847.80+47.8
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingClaude Opus 4.8 by 26.634.27.6+26.6
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.8
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Opus 4.8 by 39.348.79.4+39.3
- CritPtClaude Opus 4.8 by 20.920.90+20.9
- GPQA DiamondClaude Opus 4.8 by 13.59278.5+13.5
FactsClaude Opus 4.8
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude Opus 4.8 by 51.760.79+51.7
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Opus 4.8 by 26.848.822+26.8
Following instructionsNova 2.0 Pro Preview
- IFBenchNova 2.0 Pro Preview by 16.862.279+16.8
Other results5 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- AA-OmniscienceClaude Opus 4.8 by 77.828.8-49+77.8
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Opus 4.8 by 40.374.334+40.3
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Opus 4.8 by 35.642.67+35.6
- AA IntelligenceClaude Opus 4.8 by 27.641.814.2+27.6
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Claude Opus 4.8 by 1.794.492.7+1.7
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Nova 2.0 Pro Preview?
Claude Opus 4.8 wins five of the six areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, facts and long documents. Nova 2.0 Pro Preview wins following instructions, and costs 63% less.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.8. It wins 3 of the 3 coding tests both models report; Nova 2.0 Pro Preview wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Opus 4.8 costs $5.00 per million input tokens and $25.00 per million output tokens; Nova 2.0 Pro Preview costs $1.25 and $10.00. That makes Nova 2.0 Pro Preview about 63% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 17 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 12 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 5 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.