Claude 3 Opus (2024-02-29) vs Claude 3 Opus latest
Claude 3 Opus (2024-02-29) (Anthropic, 200,000-token context) versus Claude 3 Opus latest (Anthropic, 200,000-token context). Claude 3 Opus (2024-02-29) is cheaper by 0% on a blended token mix. Across 5 public benchmarks we tracked, Claude 3 Opus (2024-02-29) wins 0 and Claude 3 Opus latest wins 0. Use the live calculator below to plug your real usage shape into both, then route the winner via Agent Command Center for shadow A/B without code changes.
Bottom line — Claude 3 Opus (2024-02-29) vs Claude 3 Opus latest
Claude 3 Opus (2024-02-29) and Claude 3 Opus latest are priced within 0% of each other, so cost alone is not the deciding factor. The comparison comes down to capabilities, context window, and benchmark performance on the specific task shape your workload demands.
For teams evaluating both models, the recommended path is a shadow A/B test: route production traffic through an OpenAI-compatible gateway, mirror a percentage to the candidate model, score both responses with an automated evaluator (faithfulness, tool-call correctness, latency), and compare cohort-level metrics over two weeks. Future AGI Agent Command Center supports this pattern with a single `base_url` change and built-in evaluators from the ai-evaluation SDK.
Live workload comparison
Same workload run through both models. The cheaper one is highlighted.
strategy: cost-optimized
primary:
model: claude-3-opus-latest
provider: anthropic
fallback:
model: claude-3-opus-20240229
provider: anthropic
shadow: { sample_rate: 0.05 } # mirror 5% of traffic to compare quality live| Claude 3 Opus (2024-02-29) | Claude 3 Opus latest | |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $15.00/M | $15.00/M |
| Output price | $75.00/M | $75.00/M |
| Context window | 200,000 | 200,000 |
| Max output | 4,096 | 4,096 |
| Function calling | ✓ | ✓ |
| Vision | ✓ | ✓ |
| Audio input | — | — |
| Reasoning | — | — |
| Prompt caching | ✓ | ✓ |
| Structured output | ✓ | ✓ |
| Pricing verified | Jun 2, 2026 | May 7, 2026 |
Benchmark comparison
Side-by-side public benchmark scores. Greener bar = winner.
Cost at scale: monthly spend at three usage volumes
Estimated monthly cost assuming 1,000 input + 200 output tokens per request — a realistic chat-agent shape. Adjust your own usage in the calculator at the top of this page for an exact number.
| Scale | Claude 3 Opus (2024-02-29) | Claude 3 Opus latest | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Startup 10K requests/day | $9,000 /mo | $9,000 /mo | — |
| Mid-market 100K requests/day | $90,000 /mo | $90,000 /mo | — |
| Enterprise 1M requests/day | $900,000 /mo | $900,000 /mo | — |
At enterprise scale (1M requests/day), a difference of even ~10% in unit price compounds into thousands of dollars per month. Cached input pricing and batch tiers can shift this further — both are surfaced on each model's own page.
Benchmark winners — by the numbers
For each public benchmark that has scores for both models, the higher score and the size of the gap. Benchmarks are noisy — treat anything under a 2-point delta as effectively tied.
| Benchmark | Claude 3 Opus (2024-02-29) | Claude 3 Opus latest | Winner | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| arena-elo | 1248.0 | 1248.0 | tied | ~0 |
| gpqa | 50.4 | 50.4 | tied | ~0 |
| humaneval | 84.9 | 84.9 | tied | ~0 |
| mmlu | 86.8 | 86.8 | tied | ~0 |
| mmmu | 59.4 | 59.4 | tied | ~0 |
How to A/B test Claude 3 Opus (2024-02-29) vs Claude 3 Opus latest in production
If you're stuck between the two, run them side-by-side on real traffic. Four steps the Future AGI team uses internally:
- 1. Point your existing OpenAI SDK at
https://gateway.futureagi.com/v1. No code change beyondbase_urland a virtual key. - 2. Mark Claude 3 Opus (2024-02-29) primary, mirror 20% of traffic to Claude 3 Opus latest in shadow mode. Both responses are logged; only the primary is served to users.
- 3. Score every shadow response with an evaluator — faithfulness, tool-call correctness, response latency, cost. Built-in evaluators in ai-evaluation cover the common axes.
- 4. Compare cohort-level metrics after two weeks. Switch primary when the candidate wins on what matters to your workload — and stays within your latency budget.
Full walkthrough on the Agent Command Center page.
FAQ — Claude 3 Opus (2024-02-29) vs Claude 3 Opus latest
What is the context window of Claude 3 Opus (2024-02-29) versus Claude 3 Opus latest? ▾
Claude 3 Opus (2024-02-29) supports up to 200,000 tokens of context. Claude 3 Opus latest supports up to 200,000 tokens. Claude 3 Opus latest has the larger window by a factor of 1.0x, which matters for long-document RAG, multi-turn agent sessions, and tasks that need to keep an entire codebase in working memory.
Do Claude 3 Opus (2024-02-29) and Claude 3 Opus latest both support tool calling? ▾
Yes — both Claude 3 Opus (2024-02-29) and Claude 3 Opus latest support native function calling. Both also support structured output via JSON schema, so an agent can be ported between them with the same tool definitions.
Which model supports prompt caching for cost reduction? ▾
Both Claude 3 Opus (2024-02-29) and Claude 3 Opus latest support prompt caching. Cached input tokens are typically discounted 50–90% versus uncached input, depending on the provider. For agents with a stable system prompt + retrieval context, the cached pricing tier is the real unit economics number to track.
How do I A/B test Claude 3 Opus (2024-02-29) against Claude 3 Opus latest in production? ▾
Route both through an OpenAI-compatible gateway like Future AGI Agent Command Center with shadow mode enabled. Send 100% of traffic to your primary model, mirror 10–20% to the candidate, score every response with an evaluator (faithfulness, tool-call correctness, response time), and compare cohort-level metrics for two weeks. Switch when the candidate wins on the metrics that matter to your workload and stays within your latency budget.