Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Llama 3.2 90B

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 27.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic

68.6

Rank #3 Confirmed

Llama 3.2 90B Meta

27.5

Rank #331 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher in 5 categories and Llama 3.2 90B in 0 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 91.8 to 11.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 100% for Claude Opus 5.5 and 2.6% for Llama 3.2 90B.
  • Llama 3.2 90B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 5.5Llama 3.2 90B
ProviderAnthropicMeta
Noometry Index68.627.5
Released2026-09-222024-09-24
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$4—
Output $ / M tokens$20—
Results tracked449

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 71.9 (#3), Llama 3.2 90B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Llama 3.2 90B
FrontierCode54.6%—
CursorBench57.8%—
LMArena WebDev1813—
FrontierSWE62.3%—
SciCode66.9%—
LMArena Coding1547—
MirrorCode77.4%—
ALE-Bench2,147—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#15), Llama 3.2 90B: 30.0 (#80)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Llama 3.2 90B
APEX-Agents73.5%—
BALROG—27.3%
GDP.pdf30.6%—
Vending-Bench 29,235—

Reasoning Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 80.2 (#3), Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#217)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Llama 3.2 90B
Epoch Capabilities Index167.33125.5
ARC-AGI-293.3%—
NYT Connections (extended)88.5%—
ARC-AGI-198.5%—
CritPt31.7%—
EnigmaEval—0.4%
EBR-Bench71.4%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1535—
Mystery Game Puzzles71%—
DTBench98.9%—
LMCA68.2%—

Math Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 91.8 (#3), Llama 3.2 90B: 11.1 (#308)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Llama 3.2 90B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%2.6%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)91.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 495%—
ProofBench100%—
LMArena Math1506—
MATH Level 5—39.4%
FrontierMath Erdős2.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 66.4 (#10), Llama 3.2 90B: 21.7 (#274)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Llama 3.2 90B
GPQA Diamond90.6%41%
SimpleQA Verified72.2%—
LMArena Expert1547—
MMLU—80.3%

Multimodal Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 57.8 (#1), Llama 3.2 90B: 25.4 (#124)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Llama 3.2 90B
LMArena Vision13211000
GeoBench—52%
Blueprint-Bench 251.2%—
Furniture Assembly83.3%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 59.1 (#2), Llama 3.2 90B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Llama 3.2 90B
LMArena Non-English1507—
LMArena Chinese1588—
LMArena French1514—
LMArena Russian1520—
LMArena Spanish1507—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 80.0 (#3), Llama 3.2 90B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Llama 3.2 90B
LMArena Instruction Following1537—

Long Context Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 47.1 (#19), Llama 3.2 90B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Llama 3.2 90B
LMArena Longer Query1532—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 78.2 (#3), Llama 3.2 90B: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Llama 3.2 90B
LMArena Text1515—
LMArena Creative Writing1533—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2050—
LMArena Multi-Turn1499—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Llama 3.2 90B?

Claude Opus 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 68.6 to 27.5 on the Noometry Index.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and Llama 3.2 90B share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 44 scored results on Noometry and Llama 3.2 90B has 9.

Related comparisons

Go deeper