Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) vs Llama 4 Scout
Which is better for the money: Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) by Anthropic or Llama 4 Scout by Meta? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) scores 43.1 points higher (49.6 vs 6.5) but costs 152× as much to run the benchmark ($11161 vs $73.6; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) when you need intelligence above 6.5, and Llama 4 Scout when 6.5 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) | Llama 4 Scout | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 49.6 | 6.5 | −86.9% Llama 4 Scout is 86.9% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $11,160.86 | $73.56 | −99.3% Llama 4 Scout is 99.3% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 85.62s | 4.99s | −94.2% Llama 4 Scout is 94.2% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $10.0 / $50.0 | $0.18 / $0.66 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
Llama 4 Scout vs Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback): 86.9% less intelligence, 99.3% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 94.2% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback) scores 57.60 for $8708.
- Llama 4 Scout is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Xhigh) scores 34.60 for $66.8.
Claude Fable 5 (Max, Opus 4.8 Fallback)Llama 4 ScoutToday's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5/llama-4-scout · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-fable-5/llama-4-scout?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill