Claude Opus 4.6 vs Llama 4 Scout
A side-by-side comparison of two multimodal models — real specs, pricing, strengths and weaknesses, and a clear verdict on which to choose. Kept current by our agents.
Quick verdict: which should you choose?
Choose Claude Opus 4.6 if you need
- ✓Strong performance on nuanced reasoning tasks with intelligence_index of 52.9
- ✓Careful and safety-aligned responses plus high-quality structured outputs
- ✓Effective handling of large inputs up to 1M context tokens
- ✓Proprietary Anthropic model for regulated or conservative applications
Choose Llama 4 Scout if you need
- ✓Extremely large 10M-token context window for long text and image sequences
- ✓Much higher output speed of 102.47 t/s and far lower price of $0.3 per 1M tokens
- ✓Open-weight Meta model with native multimodal input support
- ✓Strong reasoning over long inputs when maximum context is required
Verdict
Claude Opus 4.6 leads on intelligence (52.9 vs 13.5) and nuanced reasoning with safety-aligned, high-quality structured outputs, while Llama 4 Scout dominates on speed (102.47 t/s vs 40.23), price ($0.3 vs $25 per 1M), and context size (10M vs 1M tokens). Claude suits careful enterprise use; Llama fits cost-sensitive long-sequence multimodal workloads.
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Llama 4 Scout: side by side
| Spec | Claude Opus 4.6 | Llama 4 Scout | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence | 52.9 | 13.5 | Claude Opus 4.6 |
| Output speed | 40 t/s | 102 t/s | Llama 4 Scout |
| Output price | $25.00/1M | $0.30/1M | Llama 4 Scout |
| Context | 1000K | 10000K | Llama 4 Scout |
| Params | — | — | Tie |
| Type | Proprietary | Open-weight | Tie |
| Provider | Anthropic | Meta | Tie |
Detailed analysis
Intelligence & Reasoning
Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Claude Opus 4.6 scores 52.9 on intelligence_index versus Llama 4 Scout's 13.5, delivering stronger nuanced reasoning and high-quality structured outputs. Llama 4 Scout emphasizes strong reasoning specifically over long inputs but trails significantly on the index.
Speed & Pricing
Winner: Llama 4 ScoutLlama 4 Scout outputs at 102.47 tokens per second and costs $0.3 per million tokens, far ahead of Claude Opus 4.6's 40.23 t/s and $25 per million. Claude's higher cost and slower speed reflect its proprietary, safety-focused design.
Context Window
Winner: Llama 4 ScoutLlama 4 Scout offers a 10-million-token context versus Claude Opus 4.6's 1 million, enabling longer multimodal sequences. Claude still handles large inputs effectively but cannot match the scale.
Access & Modalities
Winner: TieClaude Opus 4.6 is closed and proprietary with no native real-time web access; Llama 4 Scout is open-weight but limited to text and image modalities only. Each trades openness for different constraints.
Claude Opus 4.6
Pros
- +Strong performance on nuanced reasoning tasks
- +Careful and safety-aligned responses
- +Effective handling of large inputs
- +High-quality structured outputs
Cons
- –Slower response times on complex queries
- –More conservative on borderline topics
- –No native real-time web access
Llama 4 Scout
Pros
- +Extremely large context window
- +Native multimodal input support
- +Strong reasoning over long inputs
Cons
- –High compute cost at maximum context
- –Limited to text and image modalities only
- –May exhibit latency on very long sequences
Summary: Claude Opus 4.6 vs Llama 4 Scout
Select Claude Opus 4.6 when intelligence, safety alignment, and structured outputs matter most. Choose Llama 4 Scout for maximum context, speed, and low cost on long multimodal sequences. The models target different priorities rather than direct overlap.
Frequently asked questions
Claude Opus 4.6 is better on intelligence and reasoning quality; Llama 4 Scout is better on speed, price, and context length. Neither is universally superior.