Claude Opus 4.8 vs pi 0.7
At a Glance
| Compare | Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic |  pi 0.7Physical Intelligence |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5 | #18 of 4670.1 score · 3/3 sources · complete | UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | #42 of 44$0.604 per LiveBench case | UnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5 | #35 of 3840.5 score · 3/3 sources · complete | UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 1,000K | Not reported |
| Model facts checked | Aug 29, 2026View model evidence → | Aug 29, 2026View model evidence → |
Available Benchmarks
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Claude Opus 4.8 | pi 0.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | Physical Intelligence |
| Family | Claude 4 8 | pi |
| Model | Claude Opus 4.8 | pi 0.7 |
| Version | Claude Opus 4.8 | 0.7 |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-05-28 | 2026-04-16 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2026-01-01 | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Robot state |
| Output modalities | Text | Robot action |
| Context window | 1,000K | Unknown |
| Total parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | Unknown |
| Open weights | No | No |
| API available | Yes | Unknown |
| Self-hostable | No | Unknown |
| Provider access | Anthropic (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard) | Unknown |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, tools | cross-embodiment, dexterous-manipulation, language-steering, visual-subgoals |
| Robotics model type | Unknown | Vision-language-action model |
| Action representation | Unknown | Continuous robot actions conditioned by multimodal prompts |
| Control architecture | Unknown | High-level policy, world model, and action expert |
| Inference location | Unknown | Unknown |
| Native control rate (Hz) | Unknown | Unknown |
| Supported embodiments | Unknown | mobile manipulators, bimanual UR5e, multiple fixed manipulators |
| Training data | Unknown | Robot demonstrations, autonomous data, egocentric human data, and multimodal web data described by the publisher. |
Claude Opus 4.8 Capabilities
pi 0.7 Capabilities
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | vs |  Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | vs |  DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | vs | Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.8Anthropic | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Claude Opus 4.8 vs pi 0.7 FAQs
Is Claude Opus 4.8 or pi 0.7 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Opus 4.8 and pi 0.7, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.8 or pi 0.7?+
Only Claude Opus 4.8 has a directly sourced input price: $5.00 per million tokens. Only Claude Opus 4.8 has a directly sourced output price: $25.00 per million tokens.
Which has a larger context window, Claude Opus 4.8 or pi 0.7?+
Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. Claude Opus 4.8 is 1,000K and pi 0.7 is —.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Opus 4.8 or pi 0.7?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Claude Opus 4.8 or pi 0.7 be self-hosted?+
Neither model is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Claude Opus 4.8 is not marked open weight; pi 0.7 is not marked open weight.
Can Claude Opus 4.8 and pi 0.7 understand images?+
Claude Opus 4.8 is documented with image input; pi 0.7 is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Claude Opus 4.8 or pi 0.7?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Claude Opus 4.8 is 128K and pi 0.7 is —.
Do Claude Opus 4.8 and pi 0.7 support reasoning and tool use?+
Claude Opus 4.8: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. pi 0.7: image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Claude Opus 4.8 or pi 0.7?+
Claude Opus 4.8 has 2 sourced provider routes; pi 0.7 has 0, so Claude Opus 4.8 has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Claude Opus 4.8 or pi 0.7?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.