Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.1 vs Llama 4 Scout
Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.0 to 27.7 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Scout costs 200× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 25 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 25 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher in 9 categories and Llama 4 Scout in 1 category; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Claude Opus 4.1 leads 62.4 to 37.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 68.9% for Claude Opus 4.1 and 7.8% for Llama 4 Scout.
- Llama 4 Scout is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.30 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $75 for Claude Opus 4.1.
- Claude Opus 4.1 accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 128K.
- Llama 4 Scout has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.1 | Llama 4 Scout | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 41.0 | 27.7 |
| Released | 2025-08-05 | 2025-04-05 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 200K | 128K |
| Max output | 32K | 4K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $75 | $0.30 |
| Results tracked | 48 | 43 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.4 (#73), Llama 4 Scout: 20.2 (#339)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1479 | 1286 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9.1% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1390 | — |
| SciCode | — | 17% |
| WeirdML | 45.9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 43.1% |
| ALE-Bench | 674.77 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.34 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 35.0 (#41), Llama 4 Scout: 24.6 (#119)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 38% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 28.1% |
| GDPval | 43.6% | — |
| Cybench | 42% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 48.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1148 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.8% | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 32.2 (#76), Llama 4 Scout: 9.1 (#345)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | 1266 |
| DTBench | 80% | 57.9% |
| LMCA | 37.1% | 12% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.12 | 129.64 |
| ForecastBench | 62 | 57.5 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 0% |
| SimpleBench | 60% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 36.9% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 0.5% |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | 7% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 7.2% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 7.9% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 21% | — |
Math Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 22.3 (#277), Llama 4 Scout: 19.6 (#286)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 68.9% | 7.8% |
| LMArena Math | 1431 | 1287 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 7.2% | 0% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 12.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 2.4% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 37.3% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 62.3% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 42.0 (#101), Llama 4 Scout: 31.9 (#217)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 77.3% | 51.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.8% | 7.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1235 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 11.5% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 74.2% |
| Confabulations | 17.1% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 50.7% |
Multimodal Llama 4 Scout leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 26.8 (#119), Llama 4 Scout: 32.2 (#102)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1118 |
| VPCT | 35% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | — | 34.2% |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 52.0 (#95), Llama 4 Scout: 41.0 (#212)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1405 | 1252 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1427 | 1255 |
| LMArena French | 1431 | 1282 |
| LMArena German | 1413 | 1272 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | 1206 |
| LMArena Korean | 1380 | 1207 |
| LMArena Russian | 1422 | 1263 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | 1278 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 75.6 (#58), Llama 4 Scout: 65.8 (#217)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1435 | 1248 |
| IFEval | — | 81.8% |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 44.5 (#63), Llama 4 Scout: 27.5 (#294)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | 1265 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 36% |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.1 leads
Claude Opus 4.1: 62.4 (#74), Llama 4 Scout: 37.0 (#261)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.1 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | 1279 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1412 | 1249 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1444 | 1280 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 84.7% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 783 |
| WildBench | — | 78% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than Llama 4 Scout?
Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.0 to 27.7 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Scout costs 200× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or Llama 4 Scout?
Llama 4 Scout is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.1 lists at $15 and $75.
Is Claude Opus 4.1 or Llama 4 Scout better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.4 versus 20.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Opus 4.1 does, with 200K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.1 and Llama 4 Scout share?
25 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.1 has 48 scored results on Noometry and Llama 4 Scout has 43.