Anthropic just dropped their Claude computer use API and the hype is already out of control. People act like Claude's 78% OSWorld score was a clean sweep. It wasn't. That score barely clears the human baseline and it leaves a massive gap to the actual best agent in the world.
Where Claude Actually Lands on OSWorld
Digital Applied and other outlets are reporting Claude Opus 4.7 at 78% on OSWorld-Verified. That's the public number everyone quotes. It sounds impressive until you zoom out. The OSWorld benchmark tests agents across 369 real desktop tasks on Ubuntu, Windows, and macOS. A 78% score means Claude solves about 288 of those tasks. It fails 81. That's a lot of failed clicks, wrong windows, and broken workflows when you're trying to automate actual work.
The 7% Gap That Nobody Wants To Talk About
- Coasty's in-house model scored 85.6% on OSWorld with public results
- Independently verified on the official OSWorld leaderboard at 82.81%
- Most other computer use agents cluster in the 60, 70% range
- That 7, 10% difference shows up every day in real deployments
We logged 82.81% on the official OSWorld verified leaderboard. Our public results show 85.6%. Even the independently verified number beats Claude by 4.8 percentage points. That gap isn't theoretical. It's the difference between an agent that needs you to babysit every workflow and one that actually just works.
Why Claude's Computer Use Still Feels Like Beta
Anthropic's computer use tool gives Claude screenshot, mouse, and keyboard control of a desktop environment. That sounds great on paper. In practice you still have to handle context switching, window management, and the mess of modern UIs. Claude's 78% score suggests it's good at isolated tasks but struggles with multi-step workflows where one wrong click cascades into a chain of errors. That's exactly where most companies get burned. They automate one piece of a process and then spend weeks debugging what happens when that piece breaks.
UiPath Is Broken Too, But For Different Reasons
Traditional RPA tools like UiPath have been dying a slow death in 2026. Analysts report that RPA maintenance costs eat 30, 50% of initial budgets every year. The automations cost more to maintain than the manual processes they replaced. Companies are leaving UiPath because brittle scripts break constantly and fixing them feels like a full-time job. AI computer use agents should solve this but only if they actually work. Claude's 78% score suggests it's improving, but it's not the finish line most companies need.
Why Coasty Exists (and Why It Wins)
Coasty is the #1 computer use agent because we obsess over the gap between benchmark results and actual work. Coasty controls real desktops, browsers, and terminals. It handles multi-step workflows, error recovery, and parallel execution across multiple machines. You can run agents on your own desktop, in cloud VMs, or in swarms that tackle different parts of a job at the same time. Our scores reflect that. We're 85.6% on OSWorld with public results, plus 82.81% independently verified on the official leaderboard. That's higher than every competitor and it translates directly into fewer human interventions, faster deployments, and real ROI.
Don't fall for the hype. Claude's 78% OSWorld score is good, but it's not enough to replace a human yet. Coasty's 85.6% public score and 82.81% verified score show what actually matters. The best AI computer use agent isn't the one with the flashiest marketing. It's the one that finishes the work you give it without constant babysitting. If you want to stop paying people to copy-paste data in 2026, start with Coasty. It's the best computer use agent on the market and the only one that consistently outperforms Claude on the benchmarks that matter. Try it for free at coasty.ai.
Want to see this in action?
View Case Studies