Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Llama 4 Maverick

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 30.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Maverick costs 33× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 37 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.3

Rank #19 Confirmed

Llama 4 Maverick Meta

30.9

Rank #282 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 37 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 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 4.7 leads 53.8 to 10.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-1: 93.5% for Claude Opus 4.7 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 4.7.
  • Claude Opus 4.7 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
  • Llama 4 Maverick has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.7Llama 4 Maverick
ProviderAnthropicMeta
Noometry Index58.330.9
Released2026-04-142025-04-05
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M128K
Max output128K4K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.19
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.65
Results tracked6654

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 59.6 (#13), Llama 4 Maverick: 26.6 (#324)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Llama 4 Maverick
SciCode54.5%33.1%
WeirdML76.4%24.5%
LMArena Coding15181302
ALE-Bench1,323172.97
SWE-bench Verified83.5%—
FrontierCode38.5%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—21%
Aider Polyglot—15.6%
LMArena WebDev1558—
GSO44.1%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—49.7%
MirrorCode31.1%—
BigCodeBench Complete—61.4%

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), Llama 4 Maverick: 28.2 (#91)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Llama 4 Maverick
Terminal-Bench80.2%—
APEX-Agents49.2%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—37.3%
OSWorld 2.018.2%—
τ²-bench Banking40.2%—
PostTrainBench28.6%—
ExploitBench26.5%—
GBAEval43.8%—
GDP.pdf21%—
LMArena Search1233—
Vending-Bench 210,937—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29), Llama 4 Maverick: 10.1 (#342)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Llama 4 Maverick
ARC-AGI-275.8%0%
SimpleBench61.7%27.7%
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.7%55.9%
NYT Connections (extended)39%8%
ARC-AGI-193.5%4.4%
CritPt12%0%
LMArena Hard Prompts15061281
DTBench94.7%61.9%
LMCA52.2%15.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index156.25132.2
ForecastBench60.357.5
Chess Puzzles30%—
EnigmaEval—0.6%
Thematic Generalization72.8%—
EBR-Bench19%—
Mystery Game Puzzles28%—

Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), Llama 4 Maverick: 26.0 (#262)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Llama 4 Maverick
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%20.6%
LMArena Math14991299
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)43.8%0.7%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)70.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions73.6%—
ProofBench54%—
Omni-MATH—42.2%
MATH Level 5—73%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23), Llama 4 Maverick: 33.4 (#204)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Llama 4 Maverick
GPQA Diamond90.2%67%
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%5.7%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%8.2%
LMArena Expert15211259
SimpleQA Verified51.7%—
MMLU-Pro—81%
Confabulations—22.6%
GPQA (HELM)—65%

Multimodal Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), Llama 4 Maverick: 31.6 (#105)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Llama 4 Maverick
LMArena Vision13161142
GeoBench—52%
Blueprint-Bench 224.5%—
Furniture Assembly33.3%—
LMArena Document1495—
SpatialViz-Bench—31.8%

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), Llama 4 Maverick: 42.2 (#195)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Llama 4 Maverick
LMArena Non-English14801269
LMArena Chinese15311277
LMArena French15031259
LMArena German14951291
LMArena Japanese14721207
LMArena Korean14641203
LMArena Russian14941286
LMArena Spanish14951293

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), Llama 4 Maverick: 71.7 (#146)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Llama 4 Maverick
LMArena Instruction Following14981267
IFEval—90.8%

Long Context Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), Llama 4 Maverick: 31.4 (#279)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Llama 4 Maverick
LMArena Longer Query15051280
Fiction.LiveBench—46.2%

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), Llama 4 Maverick: 38.8 (#252)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Llama 4 Maverick
LMArena Text14901287
LMArena Creative Writing14861267
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1914860
LMArena Multi-Turn15051289
Short-Story Creative Writing—62%
WildBench—80%
EQ-Bench 41311—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Llama 4 Maverick?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 30.9 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Maverick costs 33× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 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 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Llama 4 Maverick better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 26.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.7 does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and Llama 4 Maverick share?

37 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Llama 4 Maverick has 54.

Related comparisons

Go deeper