Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Llama 4 Scout

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 17 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

78.34/100
Margin
38.5pts
← winning
39.87/100
0 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #5 (Supported); Llama 4 Scout #174 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.8 and Llama 4 Scout share 17 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 36 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 1 to Llama 4 Scout.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
17
Claude Opus 4.8 only
36
Llama 4 Scout only
1
Comparable categories
0 / 8

Benchmark data for Claude Opus 4.8 and Llama 4 Scout is coming soon on BenchLM.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 17 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.

Claude Opus 4.8 is priced at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Llama 4 Scout. Llama 4 Scout has the larger context window at 10M, compared with 1M for Claude Opus 4.8.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude Opus 4.8 and Llama 4 Scout
CategoryClaude Opus 4.8ΔLlama 4 Scout
AgenticClaude Opus 4.880.3MarginNo overlapLlama 4 ScoutNot measured
CodingClaude Opus 4.881.1MarginNo overlapLlama 4 ScoutNot measured
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.862.7MarginNo overlapLlama 4 ScoutNot measured
MathClaude Opus 4.853.9MarginNo overlapLlama 4 ScoutNot measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.877.0MarginNo overlapLlama 4 ScoutNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Opus 4.8B · Llama 4 Scout

  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 47.241%B 0.000%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 47.2
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Opus 4.8 scored 47.241%; Llama 4 Scout scored 0.000%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Opus 4.8Llama 4 ScoutComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 outputLlama 4 Scout$0 input / $0 outputLlama 4 Scout has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.8Not availableLlama 4 Scout128 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.8Not availableLlama 4 Scout0.70 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.81MLlama 4 Scout10MLlama 4 Scout lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Llama 4 ScoutResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 84.3%—Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource 93.1%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 83.4%—Not comparable
Finance Agent v2Source 53.9%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 159490Claude Opus 4.8 leads
MCP AtlasSource 82.2%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 59.9%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 72.97%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 47.2%1.1%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 94.4%15.5%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
GDPval-AASource 54.7%0.0%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
ResearchClawBenchSource 21.1%—Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 20.6%—Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource 1347—Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 48.5%—Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 44.0%—Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 91.1%—Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 27.6%—Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource 58.3%—Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source 84.6%—Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Llama 4 ScoutResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 88.6%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 69.2%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 84.4%—Not comparable
SWE MultimodalSource 38.4%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%—Not comparable
cursorBench31Source 58.4%—Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 62.3%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 74.3%8.2%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 53.5%17.0%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 46.5%—Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Llama 4 ScoutResult
AA-LCRSource 67.7%25.8%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
CritPtSource 20.9%0.0%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Llama 4 ScoutResult
GPQASource 93.6%—Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 93.6%—Not comparable
HLESource 57.9%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 49.8%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 55.7%10.0%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.0%58.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-HLESource 45.7%4.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 27.4%-52.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 46.6%14.6%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 35.9%78.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Llama 4 ScoutResult
USAMO 2026Source 96.7%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 47.241%0.000%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 31.250%—Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Llama 4 ScoutResult
INCLUDESource 87.6%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Llama 4 ScoutResult
OfficeQA ProSource 66.2%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 87.9%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 89.9%—Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 80.5%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1270780Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-MMMU-ProSource —52.9%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Llama 4 ScoutResult
AA-IFBenchSource 62.2%39.5%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Can I compare Claude Opus 4.8 and Llama 4 Scout on BenchLM yet?

Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.

Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?

BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.

What data is available for Claude Opus 4.8 and Llama 4 Scout today?

Claude Opus 4.8: $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens Llama 4 Scout: $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

Claude Opus 4.8
API / mo$22,500
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Llama 4 Scout
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$2,278
Break-even—
Model the full break-even

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.