Claude Opus 4.5 vs Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct
At a Glance
| Compare | Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic | |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5 | #27 of 4655.4 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 36.9–70.3 | UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | #40 of 44$0.380 per LiveBench case | UnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5 | #36 of 3838.0 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 28.8–45.4 | UnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $5.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 | $0.10Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 21, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $25.00Anthropic ↗ · Sep 3, 2026 | $0.30Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 21, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 200K | 10,000K |
| Model facts checked | Sep 3, 2026View model evidence → | Aug 28, 2026View model evidence → |
Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboardv4-ede5081a24bc · overall_accuracy · leader | 33.47100% of row best · percent · Claude-Opus-4-5-20251101 (Prompt) | 28.1384% of row best · percent · Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct (FC) |
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,447.08100% of row best · rating · claude-opus-4-5-20251101-high-32k; 95% CI [1443.17965746, 1450.98398333]; votes 36239; rank 49 | 1,279.2988% of row best · rating · llama-4-scout-17b-16e-instruct; 95% CI [1274.57681953, 1284.00026285]; votes 29740; rank 259 |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 2 benchmark winsOverall lead | 0 benchmark wins |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Claude Opus 4.5 | Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Anthropic | Meta |
| Family | Claude 4 | Llama 4 Scout 17b 16e Instruct |
| Model | Claude Opus 4.5 | Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct |
| Version | Claude Opus 4.5 | Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2025-11-24 | 2025-04-05 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2025-05-01 | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 200K | 10,000K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | 108.6B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | 17B |
| License | Unknown | other |
| Open weights | No | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes |
| Provider access | Anthropic (Standard) | Deepinfra (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools | chat, generation, tools |
Claude Opus 4.5 Capabilities
Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All image comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic | family variantsimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic | vs |  Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic | vs |  DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic | vs | Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Claude Opus 4.5Anthropic | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Claude Opus 4.5 vs Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct FAQs
Is Claude Opus 4.5 or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Opus 4.5 and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.5 or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct?+
Claude Opus 4.5 is $5.00 and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is $0.10 per million tokens, so Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is cheaper on this metric. Claude Opus 4.5 is $25.00 and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is $0.30 per million tokens, so Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Claude Opus 4.5 or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct?+
Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct has the larger sourced context window. Claude Opus 4.5 supports 200K and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct supports 10,000K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct?+
Claude Opus 4.5 leads the current overall benchmark count. The result uses 2 protocol-matched benchmarks from 2 publishers; it is not a universal quality score.
Can Claude Opus 4.5 or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct be self-hosted?+
Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Claude Opus 4.5 is not marked open weight; Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is open weight.
Can Claude Opus 4.5 and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct understand images?+
Claude Opus 4.5 is documented with image input; Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Claude Opus 4.5 or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Claude Opus 4.5 is 64K and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is —.
Do Claude Opus 4.5 and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct support reasoning and tool use?+
Claude Opus 4.5: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct: tool calling and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Claude Opus 4.5 or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct?+
Claude Opus 4.5 has 1 sourced provider route; Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct has 4, so Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Claude Opus 4.5 or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.