Claude Opus 4.7 vs Llama 4 Maverick
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 4.7 if you need
- ✓Choose Claude Opus 4.7 if you need top-tier intelligence and strong reasoning/writing quality.
- ✓Choose Claude Opus 4.7 if you need versatile handling of text, image, and file inputs with careful safety alignment.
- ✓Choose Claude Opus 4.7 if you need effective management of very large contexts without hallucinations as a primary concern.
- ✓Choose Claude Opus 4.7 if you need proprietary Anthropic-hosted access rather than open weights.
Choose Llama 4 Maverick if you need
- ✓Choose Llama 4 Maverick if you need much higher output speed at 103.78 t/s.
- ✓Choose Llama 4 Maverick if you need dramatically lower cost at $0.6 per million tokens.
- ✓Choose Llama 4 Maverick if you need open-weight access from Meta for customization or local deployment.
- ✓Choose Llama 4 Maverick if you need native text-and-image multimodal support on a 1M+ context window.
Verdict
Claude Opus 4.7 leads decisively on intelligence (53.5 vs 14.3) and offers broader multimodal versatility including file inputs plus safety-aligned outputs, while Llama 4 Maverick dominates on speed (103.78 t/s vs 47.45) and price ($0.6 vs $25 per million tokens). Both deliver comparable 1M-token context windows, but Claude's proprietary nature contrasts with Llama's open weights. The choice hinges on whether raw capability and caution outweigh cost and velocity.
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Llama 4 Maverick: side by side
| Spec | Claude Opus 4.7 | Llama 4 Maverick | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence | 53.5 | 14.3 | Claude Opus 4.7 |
| Output speed | 47 t/s | 104 t/s | Llama 4 Maverick |
| Output price | $25.00/1M | $0.60/1M | Llama 4 Maverick |
| Context | 1000K | 1049K | Llama 4 Maverick |
| Params | — | — | Tie |
| Provider | Anthropic | Meta | Tie |
Detailed analysis
Intelligence
Winner: Claude Opus 4.7Claude Opus 4.7 scores 53.5 on the intelligence index compared to Llama 4 Maverick's 14.3. This gap aligns with Claude's listed strengths in strong reasoning, writing quality, and careful responses. Llama shows solid general reasoning but trails significantly on the metric.
Speed & Pricing
Winner: Llama 4 MaverickLlama 4 Maverick outputs at 103.78 tokens per second versus Claude's 47.45 and costs $0.6 per million tokens versus $25. These advantages make Llama far more economical for high-volume use. Claude's higher latency is noted especially on complex multimodal tasks.
Context & Modalities
Winner: TieBoth models support roughly 1M-token contexts (1,000,000 vs 1,048,576). Claude adds file inputs and safety focus while Llama is limited to text and images; both are explicitly multimodal but differ in breadth and openness.
Access & Deployment
Winner: Llama 4 MaverickLlama 4 Maverick provides open weights from Meta, enabling local or customized use. Claude Opus 4.7 is proprietary and hosted by Anthropic with no native real-time web access, suiting users who prefer managed, safety-aligned APIs.
Claude Opus 4.7
Pros
- +Handles very large contexts effectively
- +Strong reasoning and writing quality
- +Versatile with text, image, and file inputs
Cons
- –Can be overly cautious or refuse edge cases
- –Higher latency on complex multimodal tasks
- –No native real-time web access
Llama 4 Maverick
Pros
- +Very large 1M token context window
- +Native multimodal support for text and images
- +Open weights from Meta
Cons
- –High compute requirements for full context
- –Limited to text and image modalities
- –Potential for hallucinations on complex tasks
Summary: Claude Opus 4.7 vs Llama 4 Maverick
Select Claude Opus 4.7 when maximum intelligence, careful multimodal handling, and writing quality are priorities. Choose Llama 4 Maverick when speed, low cost, and open weights matter most. The models tie on context size but diverge sharply on performance metrics and accessibility.
Frequently asked questions
Claude Opus 4.7 scores far higher on intelligence (53.5 vs 14.3) and supports text, image, and file inputs with safety alignment, while Llama 4 Maverick is faster and cheaper but limited to text and images with noted hallucination risks.