Head-to-head
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Claude Opus 4.8
Compare Claude Opus 4.7 and Claude Opus 4.8 on the metrics that decide an agent workload.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.7 | Claude Opus 4.8 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Anthropic |
| Input / 1M | $5.00 | $5.00 |
| Output / 1M | $25.00 | $25.00 |
| Cache read / 1M | $0.50 (−90%) | $0.50 (−90%) |
| Reuse-adj @55% | $8.14 | $8.14 |
| Context | 1M | 1M |
| Cache capture | 94% | 94% |
| Warm TTFT | 320ms (−64%) | 240ms (−68%) |
| Quality index | 98 | 98 |
Teal marks the better value in each row. Reuse-adjusted assumes 55% prefix reuse and a 25% output share.
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 when your stack already standardizes on it.
Pick Claude Opus 4.8 when it answers faster on warm cache hits.
Claude Opus 4.7 wins on both reuse-adjusted cost and quality here, so it is the default pick. Reach for Claude Opus 4.8 only when a specific constraint (modality, latency floor, or licensing) forces it.
Frequently asked
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Claude Opus 4.8, answered.
Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Claude Opus 4.8 cheaper?
At 55% prefix reuse, Claude Opus 4.7 blends to about $8.14 per 1M tokens and Claude Opus 4.8 to about $8.14. Claude Opus 4.8 is cheaper on that basis.
Which has the larger context window?
Claude Opus 4.7 has the larger window: 1M vs 1M tokens.
Which captures more reuse?
Claude Opus 4.7 shows higher measured cache capture (94% vs 94%) in the Zumik corpus.
Let an alias pick for you.
Route to whichever model wins under current policy automatically. Zumik resolves the alias to the best fit per request, so you never hard-code a loser.