Model comparison
Claude Opus 5 vs Llama 4 Scout
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 27.7 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Scout costs 67× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 28 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 28 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 5 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 5 leads 77.2 to 9.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-1: 97.5% for Claude Opus 5 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 5.
- Claude Opus 5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
- Llama 4 Scout has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Opus 5 | Llama 4 Scout | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 67.8 | 27.7 |
| Released | 2026-07-24 | 2025-04-05 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 128K |
| Max output | 128K | 4K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $5 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $25 | $0.30 |
| Results tracked | 57 | 43 |
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 4 Scout: 20.2 (#339)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 56.4% | 17% |
| LMArena Coding | 1534 | 1286 |
| DeepSWE | 73.6% | — |
| FrontierCode | 53.4% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9.1% |
| CursorBench | 46.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1691 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 52% | — |
| WeirdML | 91.8% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 43.1% |
| ALE-Bench | 2,165 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 55.6 (#1), Llama 4 Scout: 24.6 (#119)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 65.8% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 28.1% |
| 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 4 Scout: 9.1 (#345)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 90.4% | 0% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 97.5% | 0.5% |
| CritPt | 29.1% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1526 | 1266 |
| DTBench | 97.9% | 57.9% |
| LMCA | 64.5% | 12% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.78 | 129.64 |
| SimpleBench | 80.6% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 36.9% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 94.3% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 42% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 45.7% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 59% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.12 | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 57.5 |
Math Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 86.2 (#8), Llama 4 Scout: 19.6 (#286)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 98.9% | 7.8% |
| LMArena Math | 1531 | 1287 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 85.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 73.2% | — |
| ProofBench | 99% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 37.3% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 62.3% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 66.8 (#9), Llama 4 Scout: 31.9 (#217)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.9% | 51.8% |
| LMArena Expert | 1557 | 1235 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 59.9% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 74.2% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 7.7% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 50.7% |
Multimodal Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 50.8 (#8), Llama 4 Scout: 32.2 (#102)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1319 | 1118 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 30.4% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 60.8% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1516 | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | — | 34.2% |
Multilingual Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 58.8 (#4), Llama 4 Scout: 41.0 (#212)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1501 | 1252 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1574 | 1255 |
| LMArena French | 1519 | 1282 |
| LMArena German | 1524 | 1272 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1516 | 1206 |
| LMArena Korean | 1521 | 1207 |
| LMArena Russian | 1507 | 1263 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1519 | 1278 |
Instruction Following Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#7), Llama 4 Scout: 65.8 (#217)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1517 | 1248 |
| IFEval | — | 81.8% |
Long Context Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 46.5 (#21), Llama 4 Scout: 27.5 (#294)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1515 | 1265 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 36% |
Writing & Preference Claude Opus 5 leads
Claude Opus 5: 79.2 (#1), Llama 4 Scout: 37.0 (#261)
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 5 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1507 | 1279 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1491 | 1249 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2133 | 783 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1499 | 1280 |
| WildBench | — | 78% |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1385 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 5 better than Llama 4 Scout?
Claude Opus 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 67.8 to 27.7 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Scout costs 67× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 5 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 5 lists at $5 and $25.
Is Claude Opus 5 or Llama 4 Scout better for coding?
Claude Opus 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 67.5 versus 20.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Opus 5 does, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5 and Llama 4 Scout share?
28 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5 has 57 scored results on Noometry and Llama 4 Scout has 43.