# Claude Opus 4.7 vs Llama 2-70B

> Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.4 to 24.1 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-opus-4-7-vs-llama-2-70b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 22

## Summary

- They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 8 categories and Llama 2-70B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 66.5 to 7.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 97.8% for Claude Opus 4.7 and 0% for Llama 2-70B.
- Llama 2-70B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude Opus 4.7 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 58.4 | 24.1 |
| Rank | 17 | 343 |
| Context | 1M | — |
| Input $/M | $5 | — |
| Output $/M | $25 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude Opus 4.7: 59.9 (#10)
- Llama 2-70B: 30.8 (#281)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1519 | 1079 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 83.5% | — |
| FrontierCode | 38.5% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1557 | — |
| SciCode | 54.5% | — |
| GSO | 44.1% | — |
| WeirdML | 76.4% | — |
| MirrorCode | 31.1% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,323 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#8)
- Llama 2-70B: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 80.2% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 49.2% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 18.2% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 40.2% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 28.6% | — |
| ExploitBench | 26.5% | — |
| GBAEval | 43.8% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 21% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1233 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 10,937 | — |

## Reasoning

- Claude Opus 4.7: 53.7 (#24)
- Llama 2-70B: 13.7 (#324)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1507 | 1073 |
| DTBench | 94.7% | 41.6% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.39 | 113.59 |
| ForecastBench | 60.3 | 51.4 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 75.8% | — |
| SimpleBench | 61.7% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 80.7% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 39% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 93.5% | — |
| CritPt | 12% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 30% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 72.8% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 19% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 28% | — |
| LMCA | 52.2% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 64.9% |
| CommonsenseQA 2.0 | — | 50% |
| HellaSwag | — | 85.3% |
| LAMBADA | — | 78.9% |
| PIQA | — | 82.8% |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.2% |

## Math

- Claude Opus 4.7: 66.5 (#20)
- Llama 2-70B: 7.5 (#320)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 97.8% | 0% |
| LMArena Math | 1499 | 1091 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 70.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 31.7% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 73.6% | — |
| ProofBench | 54% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 3.3% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 43.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 22.9% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 69.6% |

## Knowledge

- Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#20)
- Llama 2-70B: 7.4 (#305)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.2% | 26.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1521 | 1039 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 36.2% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 51.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 78.3% |
| BoolQ | — | 88.6% |
| MMLU | — | 69.9% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 60.2% |
| TriviaQA | — | 87.6% |

## Multimodal

- Claude Opus 4.7: 41.5 (#29)
- Llama 2-70B: —

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1317 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 24.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 33.3% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1495 | — |

## Multilingual

- Claude Opus 4.7: 57.5 (#9)
- Llama 2-70B: 27.9 (#269)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1481 | 1045 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1530 | 994 |
| LMArena French | 1505 | 1089 |
| LMArena German | 1494 | 1041 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1472 | 927 |
| LMArena Korean | 1466 | 964 |
| LMArena Russian | 1494 | 1083 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1497 | 1142 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude Opus 4.7: 78.6 (#9)
- Llama 2-70B: 55.1 (#273)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1498 | 1071 |

## Long Context

- Claude Opus 4.7: 46.1 (#24)
- Llama 2-70B: 32.2 (#265)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1505 | 1062 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude Opus 4.7: 75.3 (#8)
- Llama 2-70B: 32.5 (#274)

| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Llama 2-70B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1491 | 1115 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1486 | 1075 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1506 | 1088 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1914 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1311 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Llama 2-70B?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.4 to 24.1 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Llama 2-70B better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.9 versus 30.8 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and Llama 2-70B share?

22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Llama 2-70B has 35.