Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Llama 4 Scout

Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 27.7 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Scout costs 67× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 31 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic

60.7

Rank #13 Confirmed

Llama 4 Scout Meta

27.7

Rank #330 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 31 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.8 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 4.8 leads 78.4 to 19.6.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is ARC-AGI-1: 92.5% for Claude Opus 4.8 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 4.8.
  • Claude Opus 4.8 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
  • Llama 4 Scout has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.8Llama 4 Scout
ProviderAnthropicMeta
Noometry Index60.727.7
Released2026-05-282025-04-05
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M128K
Max output128K4K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.30
Results tracked6543

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 59.9 (#12), Llama 4 Scout: 20.2 (#339)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Llama 4 Scout
SciCode53.5%17%
LMArena Coding14901286
DeepSWE59%—
FrontierCode46.5%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—9.1%
LMArena WebDev1556—
GSO47.1%—
WeirdML82.9%—
BigCodeBench Complete—43.1%
ALE-Bench1,564—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#11), Llama 4 Scout: 24.6 (#119)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Llama 4 Scout
APEX-Agents48.9%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—28.1%
OSWorld 2.020.6%—
Remote Labor Index8.3%—
τ²-bench Banking39.7%—
DeepResearch Bench50.2%—
PostTrainBench33.8%—
GBAEval70.9%—
GDP.pdf24%—
LMArena Search1204—
Vending-Bench 25,787—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 64.7 (#16), Llama 4 Scout: 9.1 (#345)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Llama 4 Scout
ARC-AGI-272.1%0%
Kagi LLM Benchmark88.8%36.9%
ARC-AGI-192.5%0.5%
CritPt20.9%0%
LMArena Hard Prompts14821266
DTBench94.9%57.9%
LMCA57.5%12%
Epoch Capabilities Index158.21129.64
ForecastBench59.957.5
SimpleBench64.8%—
NYT Connections (extended)91.1%—
Chess Puzzles34%—
EnigmaEval23.5%—
EBR-Bench28.6%—
Mystery Game Puzzles36%—
Surface Evolver Bench87.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.14—

Math Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 78.4 (#13), Llama 4 Scout: 19.6 (#286)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Llama 4 Scout
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202598.3%7.8%
LMArena Math14871287
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)47.2%0%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)80%—
FrontierMath Tier 456.1%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions91.8%—
ProofBench69%—
Omni-MATH—37.3%
MATH Level 5—62.3%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)31.3%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 61.3 (#29), Llama 4 Scout: 31.9 (#217)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Llama 4 Scout
GPQA Diamond91%51.8%
LMArena Expert15021235
SimpleQA Verified53%—
MMLU-Pro—74.2%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—7.7%
GPQA (HELM)—50.7%

Multimodal Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 42.9 (#26), Llama 4 Scout: 32.2 (#102)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Llama 4 Scout
LMArena Vision12941118
Blueprint-Bench 214.5%—
Furniture Assembly42.5%—
LMArena Document1475—
SpatialViz-Bench—34.2%

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 55.2 (#33), Llama 4 Scout: 41.0 (#212)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Llama 4 Scout
LMArena Non-English14501252
LMArena Chinese15071255
LMArena French14811282
LMArena German14721272
LMArena Japanese14401206
LMArena Korean14321207
LMArena Russian14741263
LMArena Spanish14661278

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 77.4 (#24), Llama 4 Scout: 65.8 (#217)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Llama 4 Scout
LMArena Instruction Following14761248
IFEval—81.8%

Long Context Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#35), Llama 4 Scout: 27.5 (#294)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Llama 4 Scout
LMArena Longer Query14831265
Fiction.LiveBench—36%

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.8 leads

Claude Opus 4.8: 72.0 (#16), Llama 4 Scout: 37.0 (#261)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Llama 4 Scout
LMArena Text14611279
LMArena Creative Writing14541249
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1840783
LMArena Multi-Turn14761280
WildBench—78%
EQ-Bench 41281—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Llama 4 Scout?

Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.7 to 27.7 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Scout costs 67× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.8's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.8 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 4.8 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.8 or Llama 4 Scout better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.8 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 59.9 versus 20.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.8 does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.8 and Llama 4 Scout share?

31 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.8 has 65 scored results on Noometry and Llama 4 Scout has 43.

Related comparisons

Go deeper