Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs Llama 2-7B
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5 scores higher in 8 categories and Llama 2-7B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Opus 5 leads 77.2 to 15.7.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 42% for Claude Opus 5 and 0% for Llama 2-7B.
- Llama 2-7B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 5 | Llama 2-7B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 67.8 | 29.1 |
| Released | 2026-07-24 | 2023-07-18 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 128K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | — |
| Results tracked | 57 | 29 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 67.5 (#5), Llama 2-7B: 29.2 (#307)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1534 | 1002 |
| DeepSWE | 73.6% | — |
| FrontierCode | 53.4% | — |
| CursorBench | 46.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1691 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 52% | — |
| SciCode | 56.4% | — |
| WeirdML | 91.8% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,165 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 55.6 (#1), Llama 2-7B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 65.8% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 31.4% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 48.7% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 35% | — |
| BALROG | 63.4% | — |
| GBAEval | 79.6% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 24% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 11,182 | — |
Reasoning Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 77.2 (#4), Llama 2-7B: 15.7 (#312)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 42% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1009 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.78 | 99.06 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90.4% | — |
| SimpleBench | 80.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 94.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | — |
| CritPt | 29.1% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 45.7% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 59% | — |
| DTBench | 97.9% | — |
| LMCA | 64.5% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.12 | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 39.2% |
| HellaSwag | — | 77.2% |
| LAMBADA | — | 73.3% |
| PIQA | — | 78.8% |
| WinoGrande | — | 69.2% |
Math Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 86.2 (#8), Llama 2-7B: 30.7 (#233)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1531 | 1042 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 85.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 73.2% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.9% | — |
| ProofBench | 99% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 16.7% |
Knowledge Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 66.8 (#9), Llama 2-7B: 28.2 (#248)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1557 | 1036 |
| GPQA Diamond | 93.9% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 59.9% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 45.9% |
| BoolQ | — | 77.9% |
| MMLU | — | 45.8% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 58.6% |
| TriviaQA | — | 73.7% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Opus 5: 50.8 (#8), Llama 2-7B: —
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1319 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 30.4% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 60.8% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1516 | — |
| ScienceQA | — | 43.1% |
Multilingual Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 58.8 (#4), Llama 2-7B: 23.8 (#293)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1501 | 973 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1574 | 973 |
| LMArena French | 1519 | 970 |
| LMArena German | 1524 | 978 |
| LMArena Russian | 1507 | 995 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1519 | 1007 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1516 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1521 | — |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#7), Llama 2-7B: 50.8 (#298)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1006 |
Long Context Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 46.5 (#21), Llama 2-7B: 30.4 (#287)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1515 | 999 |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#1), Llama 2-7B: 28.0 (#298)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Llama 2-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1507 | 1053 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1491 | 1033 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | 1029 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2133 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1385 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5 better than Llama 2-7B?
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude Opus 5 or Llama 2-7B better for coding?
Claude Opus 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.5 versus 29.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5 and Llama 2-7B share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5 has 57 scored results on Noometry and Llama 2-7B has 29.