Claude Opus 5 vs Granite 4.2 8B
At a Glance
| Compare | Claude Opus 5Anthropic | |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5 | #3 of 4694.1 score · 3/3 sources · complete | UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | #39 of 44$0.371 per LiveBench case | UnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5 | #13 of 3857.6 score · 3/3 sources · complete | UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $5.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 | $0.060Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 23, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $25.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 | $0.25Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 23, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 1,000K | 131K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 28, 2026View model evidence → | Sep 2, 2026View model evidence → |
Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Granite 4.2 8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,504.92100% of row best · rating · claude-opus-5-high; 95% CI [1500.70174969, 1509.13092375]; votes 42617; rank 3 | 1,316.7887% of row best · rating · granite-4.2-8b; 95% CI [1305.41435264, 1328.15511064]; votes 3087; rank 225 |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 1 benchmark winNo overall winner | 0 benchmark winsNo overall winner |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Claude Opus 5 | Granite 4.2 8B |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | IBM |
| Family | Claude 5 | Granite 4 2 |
| Model | Claude Opus 5 | Granite 4.2 8B |
| Version | Claude Opus 5 | Granite 4.2 8B |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-07-24 | 2026-08-25 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,000K | 131K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | 8.8B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Unknown | apache-2.0 |
| Open weights | No | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes |
| Provider access | Anthropic (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) | Deepinfra (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools |
Claude Opus 5 Capabilities
Granite 4.2 8B Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Claude Opus 5Anthropic | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Claude Opus 5Anthropic | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Opus 5Anthropic | vs |  Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 5Anthropic | vs |  DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 5Anthropic | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 5Anthropic | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 5Anthropic | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Claude Opus 5Anthropic | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 5Anthropic | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 5Anthropic | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 5Anthropic | vs | Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 5Anthropic | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Claude Opus 5 vs Granite 4.2 8B FAQs
Is Claude Opus 5 or Granite 4.2 8B better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Opus 5 and Granite 4.2 8B, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5 or Granite 4.2 8B?+
Claude Opus 5 is $5.00 and Granite 4.2 8B is $0.060 per million tokens, so Granite 4.2 8B is cheaper on this metric. Claude Opus 5 is $25.00 and Granite 4.2 8B is $0.25 per million tokens, so Granite 4.2 8B is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Claude Opus 5 or Granite 4.2 8B?+
Claude Opus 5 has the larger sourced context window. Claude Opus 5 supports 1,000K and Granite 4.2 8B supports 131K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Opus 5 or Granite 4.2 8B?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Claude Opus 5 or Granite 4.2 8B be self-hosted?+
Granite 4.2 8B is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Claude Opus 5 is not marked open weight; Granite 4.2 8B is open weight.
Can Claude Opus 5 and Granite 4.2 8B understand images?+
Claude Opus 5 is documented with image input; Granite 4.2 8B is not documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Claude Opus 5 or Granite 4.2 8B?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Claude Opus 5 is 128K and Granite 4.2 8B is —.
Do Claude Opus 5 and Granite 4.2 8B support reasoning and tool use?+
Claude Opus 5: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Granite 4.2 8B: reasoning and tool calling. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Claude Opus 5 or Granite 4.2 8B?+
Claude Opus 5 has 3 sourced provider routes; Granite 4.2 8B has 2, so Claude Opus 5 has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Claude Opus 5 or Granite 4.2 8B?+
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.