ScreenSpot-Pro (with tools)
We haven't written a description for this benchmark yet; see the card notes below for how each maker ran it.
- ModelScoreYour cost / mo
- 1Claude Opus 4.8 · Anthropicbest value87.9%
- 2Claude Opus 4.7 · Anthropicbest value87.6%
“Best value”: no other model here reports a higher score at a lower cost for your workload. Scores are self-reported by each maker with different settings, so treat close calls as ties.
How each maker reported it
- Claude Opus 4.8 Table 8.1.A, p.194–195
Opus 4.8 uses adaptive thinking at max effort with default sampling, averaged over 5 trials. Competitor figures come from the developers' own published cards or leaderboards.
- Claude Opus 4.7 Table 8.1.A, p.191–192
Opus 4.7 uses adaptive thinking at max effort with default sampling, averaged over 5 trials (Terminal-Bench 2.0 with thinking disabled; Finance Agent at high effort). Competitor figures come from the developers' own published cards or leaderboards.
Only each model's own maker's number is shown; scores a maker reports for rival models are left out.