Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Llama 4 Scout

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 27.7 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Scout costs 67× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 31 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic

58.2

Rank #20 Confirmed

Llama 4 Scout Meta

27.7

Rank #330 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 31 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 10 categories and Llama 4 Scout in 0 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 57.8 to 9.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-1: 94% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 0.5% for Llama 4 Scout.
  • Llama 4 Scout is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.30 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 Scout has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.6Llama 4 Scout
ProviderAnthropicMeta
Noometry Index58.227.7
Released2026-02-042025-04-05
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M128K
Max output128K4K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.30
Results tracked6843

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: 57.2 (#20), Llama 4 Scout: 20.2 (#339)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Llama 4 Scout
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)75.6%9.1%
LMArena Coding15361286
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
FrontierCode26.6%—
LMArena WebDev1547—
SWE-bench Multilingual72%—
SciCode—17%
GSO41.2%—
WeirdML78%—
BigCodeBench Complete—43.1%
ALE-Bench996.5—
AlgoTune1.47—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4), Llama 4 Scout: 24.6 (#119)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Llama 4 Scout
Terminal-Bench79.8%—
APEX-Agents46.3%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—28.1%
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: 57.8 (#23), Llama 4 Scout: 9.1 (#345)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Llama 4 Scout
ARC-AGI-269.2%0%
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.6%36.9%
ARC-AGI-194%0.5%
LMArena Hard Prompts15271266
DTBench91.2%57.9%
LMCA55.8%12%
Epoch Capabilities Index155.24129.64
ForecastBench6057.5
SimpleBench67.6%—
NYT Connections (extended)92.1%—
CritPt—0%
Chess Puzzles17%—
EnigmaEval7.6%—
Thematic Generalization80.6%—
EBR-Bench12.7%—
Mystery Game Puzzles25%—

Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31), Llama 4 Scout: 19.6 (#286)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Llama 4 Scout
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.4%7.8%
LMArena Math15191287
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)40.7%0%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%—
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions78.5%—
ProofBench50%—
Omni-MATH—37.3%
MATH Level 5—62.3%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26), Llama 4 Scout: 31.9 (#217)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Llama 4 Scout
GPQA Diamond90.5%51.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.2%7.7%
LMArena Expert15461235
Humanity's Last Exam34.4%—
SimpleQA Verified47%—
MMLU-Pro—74.2%
GPQA (HELM)—50.7%

Multimodal Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74), Llama 4 Scout: 32.2 (#102)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Llama 4 Scout
LMArena Vision13161118
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1507—
SpatialViz-Bench—34.2%

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), Llama 4 Scout: 41.0 (#212)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Llama 4 Scout
LMArena Non-English14891252
LMArena Chinese15511255
LMArena French15131282
LMArena German15021272
LMArena Japanese14841206
LMArena Korean14641207
LMArena Russian14971263
LMArena Spanish15101278

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), Llama 4 Scout: 65.8 (#217)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Llama 4 Scout
LMArena Instruction Following15231248
IFEval—81.8%

Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), Llama 4 Scout: 27.5 (#294)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Llama 4 Scout
LMArena Longer Query15201265
Fiction.LiveBench—36%
CL-bench20.7%—
CL-bench Life17%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), Llama 4 Scout: 37.0 (#261)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Llama 4 Scout
LMArena Text15031279
LMArena Creative Writing15051249
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1809783
LMArena Multi-Turn15131280
WildBench—78%
EQ-Bench 41223—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Llama 4 Scout?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 27.7 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Scout costs 67× 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 Scout?

Llama 4 Scout is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.

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

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 20.2 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 Scout share?

31 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Llama 4 Scout has 43.

Related comparisons

Go deeper