Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) vs Llama 4 Scout
Which is better for the money: Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) by Anthropic or Llama 4 Scout by Meta? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 47.1 points higher (53.6 vs 6.5) but costs 30× as much to run the benchmark ($2172 vs $73.6; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) when you need intelligence above 6.5, and Llama 4 Scout when 6.5 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) | Llama 4 Scout | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 53.6 | 6.5 | −87.9% Llama 4 Scout is 87.9% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,172.43 | $73.56 | −96.6% Llama 4 Scout is 96.6% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 33.81s | 5.16s | −84.7% Llama 4 Scout is 84.7% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $4.00 / $20.0 | $0.18 / $0.66 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
Llama 4 Scout vs Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback): 87.9% less intelligence, 96.6% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 84.7% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
- 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 5.5 (High, Default 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-opus-5-5-high/llama-4-scout · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-5-high/llama-4-scout?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill