Claude Opus 5 (High) vs Llama 4 Scout
Which is better for the money: Claude Opus 5 (High) 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 5 (High) scores 41.6 points higher (48.1 vs 6.5) but costs 59× as much to run the benchmark ($4332 vs $73.6; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Opus 5 (High) when you need intelligence above 6.5, and Llama 4 Scout when 6.5 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 (High) | Llama 4 Scout | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 48.1 | 6.5 | −86.5% Llama 4 Scout is 86.5% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $4,331.68 | $73.56 | −98.3% Llama 4 Scout is 98.3% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 24.66s | 4.99s | −79.8% Llama 4 Scout is 79.8% 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 5 (High): 86.5% less intelligence, 98.3% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 79.8% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Opus 5 (High) 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 5 (High)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-high/llama-4-scout · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-high/llama-4-scout?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill