Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.8 vs Llama 3.1-405B
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 30.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher in 9 categories and Llama 3.1-405B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.8 leads 78.4 to 18.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 98.3% for Claude Opus 4.8 and 9.7% for Llama 3.1-405B.
- Llama 3.1-405B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 4.8 | Llama 3.1-405B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 60.7 | 30.7 |
| Released | 2026-05-28 | 2024-07-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | — |
| Results tracked | 65 | 42 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 59.9 (#12), Llama 3.1-405B: 33.1 (#262)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Llama 3.1-405B |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 82.9% | 21.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1490 | 1291 |
| DeepSWE | 59% | — |
| FrontierCode | 46.5% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1556 | — |
| SciCode | 53.5% | — |
| GSO | 47.1% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,564 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#11), Llama 3.1-405B: 21.0 (#140)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Llama 3.1-405B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 48.9% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 20.6% | — |
| Remote Labor Index | 8.3% | — |
| TheAgentCompany | — | 7.4% |
| τ²-bench Banking | 39.7% | — |
| Cybench | — | 7.5% |
| DeepResearch Bench | 50.2% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 33.8% | — |
| GBAEval | 70.9% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1204 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,787 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 64.7 (#16), Llama 3.1-405B: 16.8 (#300)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Llama 3.1-405B |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 64.8% | 23% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 88.8% | 45% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1482 | 1269 |
| DTBench | 94.9% | 61.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 158.21 | 128.75 |
| ForecastBench | 59.9 | 59.9 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 72.1% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 91.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 92.5% | — |
| CritPt | 20.9% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 34% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 23.5% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 28.6% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 36% | — |
| LMCA | 57.5% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 87.5% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.14 | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 82.9% |
| HellaSwag | — | 89.2% |
| PIQA | — | 85.9% |
| WinoGrande | — | 89.2% |
Math Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 78.4 (#13), Llama 3.1-405B: 18.4 (#290)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Llama 3.1-405B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.3% | 9.7% |
| LMArena Math | 1487 | 1281 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 80% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 56.1% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 91.8% | — |
| ProofBench | 69% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 24.9% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 49.8% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 47.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 31.3% | — |
Knowledge Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 61.3 (#29), Llama 3.1-405B: 30.4 (#227)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Llama 3.1-405B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 91% | 50.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1502 | 1243 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 53% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 72.3% |
| Confabulations | — | 17.6% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 52.2% |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 95.3% |
| MMLU | — | 84.5% |
| TriviaQA | — | 82.7% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 4.8: 42.9 (#26), Llama 3.1-405B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Llama 3.1-405B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1294 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 14.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 42.5% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1475 | — |
Multilingual Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 55.2 (#33), Llama 3.1-405B: 40.7 (#214)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Llama 3.1-405B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1450 | 1248 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1507 | 1242 |
| LMArena French | 1481 | 1279 |
| LMArena German | 1472 | 1252 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1440 | 1208 |
| LMArena Korean | 1432 | 1184 |
| LMArena Russian | 1474 | 1265 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1466 | 1260 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 77.4 (#24), Llama 3.1-405B: 65.9 (#214)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Llama 3.1-405B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1476 | 1259 |
| IFEval | — | 81.1% |
Long Context Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#35), Llama 3.1-405B: 38.4 (#197)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Llama 3.1-405B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1483 | 1266 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Claude Opus 4.8: 72.0 (#16), Llama 3.1-405B: 38.9 (#251)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.8 | Llama 3.1-405B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1461 | 1284 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1454 | 1262 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1840 | 870 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1476 | 1297 |
| WildBench | — | 78.3% |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1281 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Llama 3.1-405B?
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 30.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 4.8 or Llama 3.1-405B better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.9 versus 33.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.8 and Llama 3.1-405B share?
26 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.8 has 65 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.1-405B has 42.