Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 16, 2026
This page compares Claude Opus 4.6 (Anthropic) and Llama 4 Scout (Meta) using the latest snapshots we have as of Aug 16, 2026. On preference Elo, Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead by 162 points (1,574 vs 1,412; seed-bootstrap (Aug 1, 2026)). On SWE-bench coding, Claude Opus 4.6 resolves 75.9% versus 52.4% (seed-bootstrap (Aug 1, 2026)). Llama 4 Scout streams faster (155 tok/s) while Llama 4 Scout is the cheaper output token ($0.3/1M). Llama 4 Scout has the larger context window (1.3M tokens). Every cell below is a dated snapshot from a named public source — we do not invent missing scores, and we do not run SWE-bench ourselves.
Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.6Follow-on Opus release. Slightly behind 4.5 on official SWE-bench bash-only in the last published sweep; stronger long-horizon agent traces.
Meta
Llama 4 ScoutMeta open-weight Llama 4 long-context sibling of Maverick. Common public API lists sit near $0.08–$0.30 / $0.30–$0.70 per 1M; we store a conservative hosted list until OpenRouter overwrites.
Instant pairwise benchmark recalculation across 400+ LLMs
Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.
Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy
Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness
Cost per million tokens and max context window length
Each spoke is a skill. Farther from the center is better (0–100th percentile). Tap any dot to inspect details.
162 pts advantage
91 tok/s faster
$24.70/1M cheaper
Simulate monthly production API costs based on published $/1M tokens.
Llama 4 Scout is estimated to save $542.00/month ($6,504/year).
Higher SWE-bench (75.9%).
Lower output list price ($0.3/1M).
Lower TTFT (130 ms).
Larger window (1.3M).
Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (Claude Opus 4.6).
| Target Workload | Recommended Pick | Evaluation Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Repo / coding agents | Claude Opus 4.6 | Higher SWE-bench (75.9%). |
| High-volume chat | Llama 4 Scout | Lower output list price ($0.3/1M). |
| Voice / low-latency UI | Llama 4 Scout | Lower TTFT (130 ms). |
| Long-document RAG | Llama 4 Scout | Larger window (1.3M). |
| Screenshots / vision | Claude Opus 4.6 | Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (Claude Opus 4.6). |
$1/$5 hosted Claude vs a cheap long-context open sibling. The alternative-to-Sonnet pair that is honest.
Slightly behind 4.5 on one official SWE-bench sweep; stronger long-horizon traces. We keep the row for old vs URLs.
Huge window, cheap hosted lists. The Haiku alternative that is actually open-weight.
No comments posted on this matchup yet. Be the first to share an evaluation note!
The real PNG is generated at /compare/claude-opus-4-6-vs-llama-4-scout/opengraph-image for crawlers.
Verified head-to-head card
