LIVE
ANTHROPICOpus 4.7 benchmarks published2m ago
CLAUDEOK142ms
OPUS 4.7$15 / $75per Mtok
CHATGPTOK89ms
HACKERNEWSWhy has not AI improved design quality the way it improved dev speed?14m ago
MMLU-PROleader Opus 4.788.4
GEMINIDEGRADED312ms
MISTRALMistral Medium 3 released6m ago
GPT-4o$5 / $15per Mtok
ARXIVCompositional reasoning in LRMs22m ago
BEDROCKOK178ms
GEMINI 2.5$3.50 / $10.50per Mtok
THE VERGEFrontier Model Forum expansion announced38m ago
SWE-BENCHleader Claude Opus 4.772.1%
MISTRALOK104ms
ANTHROPICOpus 4.7 benchmarks published2m ago
CLAUDEOK142ms
OPUS 4.7$15 / $75per Mtok
CHATGPTOK89ms
HACKERNEWSWhy has not AI improved design quality the way it improved dev speed?14m ago
MMLU-PROleader Opus 4.788.4
GEMINIDEGRADED312ms
MISTRALMistral Medium 3 released6m ago
GPT-4o$5 / $15per Mtok
ARXIVCompositional reasoning in LRMs22m ago
BEDROCKOK178ms
GEMINI 2.5$3.50 / $10.50per Mtok
THE VERGEFrontier Model Forum expansion announced38m ago
SWE-BENCHleader Claude Opus 4.772.1%
MISTRALOK104ms

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Llama 4 Maverick

This comparison captures the central tension in AI today: proprietary vs open source. Claude Opus 4.7 is the best closed-source model by most benchmarks and now ships with a 1M context window, while Llama 4 Maverick is Meta's strongest open-source offering, also at 1M context. Claude wins on raw performance, but Llama is free to self-host and fine-tune. The right choice depends entirely on your deployment constraints.

Head-to-Head Specs

SpecClaude Opus 4.7Llama 4 Maverick
ProviderAnthropicMeta
Input Price$15.00/1MFree/1M
Output Price$75.00/1MFree/1M
Context Window1M1M
Released2026-042025-04
Capabilitiestext, vision, tool-use, codetext, vision, code

Benchmark Scores

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Llama 4 MaverickWinner
MMLU-Pro93.889.3Claude
HumanEval96.291.7Claude
GPQA Diamond76.564.1Claude
MATH93.186.7Claude
SWE-bench65.452.8Claude

See the full benchmark leaderboard for all models.

Category Breakdown

Benchmark scoresClaude Opus 4.7

Claude leads across all five major benchmarks

CostLlama 4 Maverick

Llama is free to self-host; Claude costs $15/$75 per 1M tokens

CustomizationLlama 4 Maverick

Llama can be fine-tuned for specific domains; Claude cannot

Context windowTieTie

Both models offer 1M token context windows

Code generationClaude Opus 4.7

Claude scores 96.2 on HumanEval vs Maverick at 91.7

Data privacyLlama 4 Maverick

Self-hosted Llama keeps all data on your infrastructure

Choose Claude Opus 4.7 when:

  • Best possible output quality regardless of cost
  • Quick API integration without infrastructure
  • Agentic workflows needing tool use
  • Teams without ML infrastructure expertise
View Claude Opus 4.7 details

Choose Llama 4 Maverick when:

  • On-premise deployments for data sovereignty
  • Custom fine-tuning for specific domains
  • Zero marginal cost at high volume
  • Research and experimentation
View Llama 4 Maverick details

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.7 or Llama 4 Maverick?

It depends on your use case. Claude Opus 4.7 from Anthropic excels at best possible output quality regardless of cost, while Llama 4 Maverick from Meta is better for on-premise deployments for data sovereignty. See the full comparison above for detailed benchmarks and pricing.

How much does Claude Opus 4.7 cost compared to Llama 4 Maverick?

Claude Opus 4.7 costs $15.00 input and $75.00 output per 1M tokens. Llama 4 Maverick costs Free input and Free output per 1M tokens.

What is the context window difference between Claude Opus 4.7 and Llama 4 Maverick?

Claude Opus 4.7 supports 1M tokens, while Llama 4 Maverick supports 1M tokens.

More Comparisons

Interactive Compare ToolAll ModelsFull Pricing Guide