Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.5 vs Codellama 70b Instruct
Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 33.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher in 5 categories and Codellama 70b Instruct in 0 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Claude Opus 4.5 leads 68.1 to 33.4.
- Codellama 70b Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.5 | Codellama 70b Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 50.5 | 33.7 |
| Released | 2025-11-01 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 200K | — |
| Max output | 64K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | — |
| Results tracked | 69 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Claude Opus 4.5: 54.8 (#27), Codellama 70b Instruct: 37.6 (#193)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Codellama 70b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 76.7% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 76.8% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1494 | — |
| SWE-bench Multilingual | 70.7% | — |
| GSO | 26.5% | — |
| WeirdML | 63.7% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 40.7% |
| LMArena Coding | 1504 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 49.6% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,025 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.77 | — |
| HumanEval+ | — | 65.9% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.5: 47.3 (#12), Codellama 70b Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Codellama 70b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 63.1% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 77.5% | — |
| GDPval | 45.5% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 3.8% | — |
| τ²-bench Airline | 84% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 24.7% | — |
| τ²-bench Retail | 79.6% | — |
| τ²-bench Telecom | 92.3% | — |
| Cybench | 82% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 54.8% | — |
| OSWorld | 66.3% | — |
| BALROG | 43.5% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1180 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 75% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 4,967 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Claude Opus 4.5: 42.6 (#51), Codellama 70b Instruct: 20.1 (#242)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Codellama 70b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1476 | 1052 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 37.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 62% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 80.2% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 52.5% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 80% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 12% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 11.9% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 14.3% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 22% | — |
| DTBench | 89.9% | — |
| LMCA | 44.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 150.09 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.7 | — |
Math Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.5: 38.6 (#132), Codellama 70b Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Codellama 70b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 34.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 4.9% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 86.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 36% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1463 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 20.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 4.2% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.5: 56.5 (#44), Codellama 70b Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Codellama 70b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 86% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 25.2% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 45.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.9% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1487 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.5: 31.4 (#107), Codellama 70b Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Codellama 70b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| GeoBench | 75% | — |
| VPCT | 40% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 28.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1462 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Claude Opus 4.5: 54.3 (#47), Codellama 70b Instruct: 24.8 (#288)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Codellama 70b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1438 | 992 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1470 | — |
| LMArena French | 1471 | — |
| LMArena German | 1449 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1416 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1424 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1447 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1458 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Claude Opus 4.5: 77.5 (#19), Codellama 70b Instruct: 51.9 (#293)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Codellama 70b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1478 | 1024 |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.5: 46.5 (#22), Codellama 70b Instruct: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Codellama 70b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| CL-bench | 21.1% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1480 | — |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.5 leads
Claude Opus 4.5: 68.1 (#28), Codellama 70b Instruct: 33.4 (#277)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Codellama 70b Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1451 | 1057 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1445 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1687 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1466 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.5 better than Codellama 70b Instruct?
Claude Opus 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.5 to 33.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 4.5 or Codellama 70b Instruct better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 54.8 versus 37.6 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.5 and Codellama 70b Instruct share?
4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.5 has 69 scored results on Noometry and Codellama 70b Instruct has 7.