Claude Opus 4.8 vs Fugu
Claude Opus 4.8 (2026) and Fugu (2026) are frontier-tier reasoning models from Anthropic and Sakana AI. Claude Opus 4.8 ships a 1m-token context window, while Fugu ships a 1m-token context window. On SWE-bench Pro, Claude Opus 4.8 leads by 10.2 pts. This comparison covers specs, pricing, API access, capabilities, benchmarks, input and output token costs, and production fit for coding and agent workloads.
Fugu is safer overall; choose Claude Opus 4.8 when coding workflow support matters.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Claude Opus 4.8 | Fugu |
|---|---|---|
| Best for | reasoning-heavy apps, multimodal apps, and tool-calling agents | reasoning-heavy apps, multimodal apps, and tool-calling agents |
| Decision fit | Coding, RAG, and Agents | Coding, RAG, and Agents |
| Context window | 1m | 1m |
| Cheapest output | $25/1M tokens | - |
| Provider routes | 6 tracked | 1 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | SWE-bench Pro leader | 4 shared |
Decision tradeoffs
- Claude Opus 4.8 holds a shared-benchmark lead on SWE-bench Pro, ahead by 10.2 points.
- Claude Opus 4.8 has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
- Claude Opus 4.8 uniquely exposes Code execution, Computer use, and Parallel agents in local model data.
- Local decision data tags Claude Opus 4.8 for Coding, RAG, and Agents.
- Fugu holds a shared-benchmark lead on Google-Proof Q&A, ahead by 1.9 points.
- Local decision data tags Fugu for Coding, RAG, and Agents.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.
Claude Opus 4.8
$10,250
Cheapest tracked route/tier: Anthropic
Fugu
Unavailable
No complete token price in local provider data
Cost delta unavailable until both models have sourced input and output token prices.
Switch friction
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Claude Opus 4.8 and Fugu; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Check replacement coverage for Code execution, Computer use, and Parallel agents before moving production traffic.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Fugu and Claude Opus 4.8; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Claude Opus 4.8 adds Code execution, Computer use, and Parallel agents in local capability data.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2026-05-28 | 2026-06-22 |
| Context window | 1m | 1m |
| Parameters | — | — |
| Architecture | Decoder Only | Composition of Experts |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Openness | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | Commercial use: conditional | Commercial use: conditional |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2026-01 | - |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Claude Opus 4.8 | Fugu |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $5/1M tokens | - |
| Output price | $25/1M tokens | - |
| Providers |
Capabilities
| Capability | Claude Opus 4.8 | Fugu |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | Yes | Yes |
| Multimodal | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Function calling | Yes | Yes |
| Tool use | Yes | Yes |
| Structured outputs | Yes | Yes |
| Code execution | Yes | No |
| IDE integration | No | No |
| Computer use | Yes | No |
| Parallel agents | Yes | No |
Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Fugu |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Pro | 69.2 | 59.0 |
| Google-Proof Q&A | 93.6 | 95.5 |
| LiveCodeBench | 88.8 | 92.9 |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 | 74.6 | 80.2 |
Deep dive
On shared benchmark coverage, SWE-bench Pro has Claude Opus 4.8 at 69.2 and Fugu at 59, with Claude Opus 4.8 ahead by 10.2 points; Google-Proof Q&A has Claude Opus 4.8 at 93.6 and Fugu at 95.5, with Fugu ahead by 1.9 points; LiveCodeBench has Claude Opus 4.8 at 88.8 and Fugu at 92.9, with Fugu ahead by 4.1 points. The largest visible gap is 10.2 points on SWE-bench Pro, which matters most when that benchmark mirrors your workload. Treat isolated benchmark wins as directional, because provider routing, prompt style, and tool access can move real application results.
The capability footprint differs most on code execution: Claude Opus 4.8. Both models share vision, multimodal input, reasoning mode, and function calling, so the practical split is not just feature count. Use those differences to decide whether the page is about raw model quality, agentic coding support, multimodal ingestion, or predictable structured API behavior.
Pricing coverage is uneven: Claude Opus 4.8 has $5/1M input tokens and Fugu has no token price sourced yet. Provider availability is 6 tracked routes versus 1. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.
Choose Claude Opus 4.8 when coding workflow support and broader provider choice are central to the workload. Choose Fugu when vision-heavy evaluation are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship.
FAQ
Which has a larger context window, Claude Opus 4.8 or Fugu?
Claude Opus 4.8 supports 1m tokens, while Fugu supports 1m tokens. That gap matters most for long documents, large codebases, retrieval-heavy agents, and conversations where earlier context must remain visible.
Is Claude Opus 4.8 or Fugu open source?
Claude Opus 4.8 is listed under Proprietary. Fugu is listed under Proprietary. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.
Which is better for vision, Claude Opus 4.8 or Fugu?
Both Claude Opus 4.8 and Fugu expose vision. The better choice depends on benchmark fit, context budget, pricing, and whether your provider route exposes the same capability surface. Use this as a quick comparison signal, then confirm the provider-specific limits before committing to production.
Which is better for multimodal input, Claude Opus 4.8 or Fugu?
Both Claude Opus 4.8 and Fugu expose multimodal input. The better choice depends on benchmark fit, context budget, pricing, and whether your provider route exposes the same capability surface. Use this as a quick comparison signal, then confirm the provider-specific limits before committing to production.
Which is better for reasoning mode, Claude Opus 4.8 or Fugu?
Both Claude Opus 4.8 and Fugu expose reasoning mode. The better choice depends on benchmark fit, context budget, pricing, and whether your provider route exposes the same capability surface. Use this as a quick comparison signal, then confirm the provider-specific limits before committing to production.
Where can I run Claude Opus 4.8 and Fugu?
Claude Opus 4.8 is available on Anthropic, AWS Bedrock, GCP Vertex AI, Microsoft Foundry, and OpenRouter. Fugu is available on Sakana AI. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-06-22. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.