Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Llama 4 Maverick

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 30.6 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Maverick costs 33× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 37 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic

58.3

Rank #18 Confirmed

Llama 4 Maverick Meta

30.6

Rank #276 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 37 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 10 categories and Llama 4 Maverick in 0 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 57.7 to 10.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-1: 94% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 4.4% for Llama 4 Maverick.
  • Llama 4 Maverick is cheaper at $0.19 / $0.65 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.6.
  • Claude Opus 4.6 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
  • Llama 4 Maverick has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.6Llama 4 Maverick
ProviderAnthropicMeta
Noometry Index58.330.6
Released2026-02-042025-04-05
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M128K
Max output128K4K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.19
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.65
Results tracked6854

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.7 (#15), Llama 4 Maverick: 26.3 (#318)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Llama 4 Maverick
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)75.6%21%
WeirdML78%24.5%
LMArena Coding15351302
ALE-Bench996.5172.97
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
FrontierCode26.6%—
Aider Polyglot—15.6%
LMArena WebDev1546—
SWE-bench Multilingual72%—
SciCode—33.1%
GSO41.2%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—49.7%
BigCodeBench Complete—61.4%
AlgoTune1.47—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 51.0 (#4), Llama 4 Maverick: 27.9 (#86)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Llama 4 Maverick
Terminal-Bench79.8%—
APEX-Agents46.3%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—37.3%
Remote Labor Index4.2%—
τ²-bench Banking27.3%—
Cybench93%—
DeepResearch Bench55.3%—
GBAEval44.1%—
LMArena Search1253—
METR Time Horizons78.9%—
Vending-Bench 28,018—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.7 (#21), Llama 4 Maverick: 10.1 (#337)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Llama 4 Maverick
ARC-AGI-269.2%0%
SimpleBench67.6%27.7%
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.6%55.9%
NYT Connections (extended)92.1%8%
ARC-AGI-194%4.4%
EnigmaEval7.6%0.6%
LMArena Hard Prompts15271281
DTBench91.2%61.9%
LMCA55.8%15.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index155.36132.2
ForecastBench6057.5
CritPt—0%
Chess Puzzles17%—
Thematic Generalization80.6%—
EBR-Bench12.7%—
Mystery Game Puzzles25%—

Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 62.7 (#25), Llama 4 Maverick: 24.6 (#256)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Llama 4 Maverick
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.4%20.6%
LMArena Math15171299
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)40.7%0.7%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%—
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions78.5%—
ProofBench50%—
Omni-MATH—42.2%
MATH Level 5—73%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 61.8 (#23), Llama 4 Maverick: 33.3 (#196)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Llama 4 Maverick
GPQA Diamond90.5%67%
Humanity's Last Exam34.4%5.7%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.2%8.2%
LMArena Expert15461259
SimpleQA Verified47%—
MMLU-Pro—81%
Confabulations—22.6%
GPQA (HELM)—65%

Multimodal Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 37.0 (#67), Llama 4 Maverick: 30.9 (#100)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Llama 4 Maverick
LMArena Vision13161141
GeoBench—52%
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1507—
SpatialViz-Bench—31.8%

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 58.2 (#4), Llama 4 Maverick: 42.4 (#190)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Llama 4 Maverick
LMArena Non-English14901269
LMArena Chinese15511277
LMArena French15131258
LMArena German15041291
LMArena Japanese14841207
LMArena Korean14651203
LMArena Russian14971286
LMArena Spanish15121293

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 79.7 (#3), Llama 4 Maverick: 71.9 (#140)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Llama 4 Maverick
LMArena Instruction Following15231267
IFEval—90.8%

Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), Llama 4 Maverick: 31.4 (#274)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Llama 4 Maverick
LMArena Longer Query15201280
Fiction.LiveBench—46.2%
CL-bench20.7%—
CL-bench Life17%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 73.7 (#9), Llama 4 Maverick: 39.0 (#247)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Llama 4 Maverick
LMArena Text15041287
LMArena Creative Writing15061266
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1809860
LMArena Multi-Turn15141289
Short-Story Creative Writing—62%
WildBench—80%
EQ-Bench 41223—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Llama 4 Maverick?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 30.6 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Maverick costs 33× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or Llama 4 Maverick?

Llama 4 Maverick is cheaper. It lists at $0.19 per million input tokens and $0.65 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Llama 4 Maverick better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.7 versus 26.3 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.6 does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and Llama 4 Maverick share?

37 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Llama 4 Maverick has 54.

Related comparisons

Go deeper