Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Llama 4 Scout

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 27.7 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Scout costs 67× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 32 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.3

Rank #19 Confirmed

Llama 4 Scout Meta

27.7

Rank #330 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 32 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher in 10 categories and Llama 4 Scout in 0 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.7 leads 66.7 to 19.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-1: 93.5% for Claude Opus 4.7 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 4.7.
  • Claude Opus 4.7 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
  • Llama 4 Scout has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.7Llama 4 Scout
ProviderAnthropicMeta
Noometry Index58.327.7
Released2026-04-142025-04-05
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M128K
Max output128K4K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.30
Results tracked6643

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 59.6 (#13), Llama 4 Scout: 20.2 (#339)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Llama 4 Scout
SciCode54.5%17%
LMArena Coding15181286
SWE-bench Verified83.5%—
FrontierCode38.5%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—9.1%
LMArena WebDev1558—
GSO44.1%—
WeirdML76.4%—
MirrorCode31.1%—
BigCodeBench Complete—43.1%
ALE-Bench1,323—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), Llama 4 Scout: 24.6 (#119)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Llama 4 Scout
Terminal-Bench80.2%—
APEX-Agents49.2%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—28.1%
OSWorld 2.018.2%—
τ²-bench Banking40.2%—
PostTrainBench28.6%—
ExploitBench26.5%—
GBAEval43.8%—
GDP.pdf21%—
LMArena Search1233—
Vending-Bench 210,937—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29), Llama 4 Scout: 9.1 (#345)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Llama 4 Scout
ARC-AGI-275.8%0%
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.7%36.9%
ARC-AGI-193.5%0.5%
CritPt12%0%
LMArena Hard Prompts15061266
DTBench94.7%57.9%
LMCA52.2%12%
Epoch Capabilities Index156.25129.64
ForecastBench60.357.5
SimpleBench61.7%—
NYT Connections (extended)39%—
Chess Puzzles30%—
Thematic Generalization72.8%—
EBR-Bench19%—
Mystery Game Puzzles28%—

Math Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), Llama 4 Scout: 19.6 (#286)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Llama 4 Scout
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%7.8%
LMArena Math14991287
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)43.8%0%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)70.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 431.7%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions73.6%—
ProofBench54%—
Omni-MATH—37.3%
MATH Level 5—62.3%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23), Llama 4 Scout: 31.9 (#217)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Llama 4 Scout
GPQA Diamond90.2%51.8%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%7.7%
LMArena Expert15211235
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%—
SimpleQA Verified51.7%—
MMLU-Pro—74.2%
GPQA (HELM)—50.7%

Multimodal Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), Llama 4 Scout: 32.2 (#102)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Llama 4 Scout
LMArena Vision13161118
Blueprint-Bench 224.5%—
Furniture Assembly33.3%—
LMArena Document1495—
SpatialViz-Bench—34.2%

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), Llama 4 Scout: 41.0 (#212)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Llama 4 Scout
LMArena Non-English14801252
LMArena Chinese15311255
LMArena French15031282
LMArena German14951272
LMArena Japanese14721206
LMArena Korean14641207
LMArena Russian14941263
LMArena Spanish14951278

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), Llama 4 Scout: 65.8 (#217)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Llama 4 Scout
LMArena Instruction Following14981248
IFEval—81.8%

Long Context Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), Llama 4 Scout: 27.5 (#294)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Llama 4 Scout
LMArena Longer Query15051265
Fiction.LiveBench—36%

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.7 leads

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), Llama 4 Scout: 37.0 (#261)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Llama 4 Scout
LMArena Text14901279
LMArena Creative Writing14861249
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1914783
LMArena Multi-Turn15051280
WildBench—78%
EQ-Bench 41311—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Llama 4 Scout?

Claude Opus 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.3 to 27.7 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Scout costs 67× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 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 4.7 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Llama 4 Scout better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.6 versus 20.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.7 does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and Llama 4 Scout share?

32 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Llama 4 Scout has 43.

Related comparisons

Go deeper