Claude Opus 4.6 vs Granite 4.2 8B
At a Glance
| Compare | Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5 | #12 of 4676.2 score · 3/3 sources · complete | UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | #33 of 44$0.241 per LiveBench case | UnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5 | #19 of 3853.2 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 22, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $25.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 | $0.25Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 22, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 1,000K | 131K |
| Model facts checked | Sep 3, 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 4.6 | Granite 4.2 8B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,497.54100% of row best · rating · claude-opus-4-6; 95% CI [1494.14263199, 1500.94441396]; votes 75878; rank 5 | 1,316.7888% 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 4.6 | Granite 4.2 8B |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | IBM |
| Family | Claude 4 | Granite 4 2 |
| Model | Claude Opus 4.6 | Granite 4.2 8B |
| Version | Claude Opus 4.6 | Granite 4.2 8B |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-02-05 | 2026-08-25 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2025-05-01 | 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) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools |
Claude Opus 4.6 Capabilities
Granite 4.2 8B Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs |  Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs |  DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs | Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.6Anthropic | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Granite 4.2 8B FAQs
Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Granite 4.2 8B better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Opus 4.6 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 4.6 or Granite 4.2 8B?+
Claude Opus 4.6 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 4.6 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 4.6 or Granite 4.2 8B?+
Claude Opus 4.6 has the larger sourced context window. Claude Opus 4.6 supports 1,000K and Granite 4.2 8B supports 131K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Opus 4.6 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 4.6 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 4.6 is not marked open weight; Granite 4.2 8B is open weight.
Can Claude Opus 4.6 and Granite 4.2 8B understand images?+
Claude Opus 4.6 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 4.6 or Granite 4.2 8B?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Claude Opus 4.6 is 128K and Granite 4.2 8B is —.
Do Claude Opus 4.6 and Granite 4.2 8B support reasoning and tool use?+
Claude Opus 4.6: 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 4.6 or Granite 4.2 8B?+
Claude Opus 4.6 has 1 sourced provider route; Granite 4.2 8B has 2, so Granite 4.2 8B has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Claude Opus 4.6 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.