Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) vs Llama 4 Scout
Which is better for the money: Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) 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 Opus 4.8 (Max) scores 35.3 points higher (41.8 vs 6.5) but costs 93× as much to run the benchmark ($6874 vs $73.6; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) when you need intelligence above 6.5, and Llama 4 Scout when 6.5 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) | Llama 4 Scout | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 41.8 | 6.5 | −84.4% Llama 4 Scout is 84.4% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $6,873.86 | $73.56 | −98.9% Llama 4 Scout is 98.9% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 37.99s | 4.99s | −86.9% Llama 4 Scout is 86.9% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $5.00 / $25.0 | $0.18 / $0.66 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
Llama 4 Scout vs Claude Opus 4.8 (Max): 84.4% less intelligence, 98.9% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 86.9% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Opus 4.8 (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) scores 56.00 for $4057.
- Llama 4 Scout is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Xhigh) scores 34.60 for $66.8.
Claude Opus 4.8 (Max)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-opus-4-8/llama-4-scout · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-4-8/llama-4-scout?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill