Which model is better: Claude Opus 5.5 or Llama 4 Maverick?
Llama 4 Maverick is 95.0% cheaper for input tokens ($0.20 vs. $4.00 per 1M tokens) and $0.60 vs. $20.00 for output tokens (20.0x cost advantage). In terms of operational performance, Llama 4 Maverick delivers lower response latency at 135ms TTFT (545ms faster than Claude Opus 5.5) with 175 vs. 95 tok/s throughput. Claude Opus 5.5 leads coding evaluations at 89.9% SWE-bench Verified vs. 62.4% for Llama 4 Maverick and 93.2% vs. 73.8% on GPQA Diamond.
Verified daily via automated API latency tests and official documentation.
Zero-Shot RAG Verified
Verified Performance & Unit Economics Delta (12 Dimensions)
Daily synchronized metrics across token pricing, prompt cache economics, latency, throughput, and 5 capability benchmarks.
Metric / Dimension
Claude Opus 5.5
Llama 4 Maverick
Net Delta / Advantage
Input Cost / 1M Tokens
$4.00
$0.20
Llama 4 Maverick is 20.0x cheaper
Output Cost / 1M Tokens
$20.00
$0.60
Llama 4 Maverick (97.0% lower)
Prompt Cache Read / 1M
$0.200
$0.050
Llama 4 Maverick is 4.0x cheaper
Prompt Cache Write / 1M
$5.00
$0.20
Llama 4 Maverick is 25.0x cheaper
Context Window (Max Output)
1,024k (128k out)
1,049k (33k out)
Llama 4 Maverick (1.0x larger context)
Avg TTFT Response Latency
680ms
135ms
Llama 4 Maverick (545ms faster)
Generation Speed (Throughput)
95 tok/s
175 tok/s
Llama 4 Maverick (+80 tok/s faster)
SWE-bench Verified (Coding)
89.9%
62.4%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+27.5% lead)
GPQA Diamond (PhD STEM)
93.2%
73.8%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+19.4% lead)
MMLU-Pro (Multi-Discipline)
92.1%
84.5%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+7.6% lead)
MATH-500 (Quantitative Logic)
98%
91%
Claude Opus 5.5 (+7.0% lead)
Inference Value Score (IVR)
57.8 / 100
77 / 100
Llama 4 Maverick (+19.2 pts)
Interactive Monthly Token Economics & ROI Forecaster
Model production workloads across prompt, completion, and cached context tokens, or switch models on the fly.
Choose Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic) for top-ranked frontier intelligence leader for autonomous multi-step agentic coding, repository-scale migrations, and complex scientific reasoning at a 40% lower workload cost than Opus 5 — offering a 1,024k context window, 680ms TTFT, and $4.00/1M input pricing ($0.200/1M cached reads).
Which is cheaper: Claude Opus 5.5 or Llama 4 Maverick?
Llama 4 Maverick is cheaper at $0.20/1M input tokens ($0.60/1M output) compared to $4.00/1M input ($20.00/1M output) for Claude Opus 5.5.
Which model has lower TTFT latency and higher tok/s throughput: Claude Opus 5.5 or Llama 4 Maverick?
Llama 4 Maverick delivers faster first-token latency at 135ms TTFT (175 tok/s throughput) compared to 680ms TTFT (95 tok/s) for Claude Opus 5.5.
How do Claude Opus 5.5 and Llama 4 Maverick compare on SWE-bench coding and GPQA Diamond reasoning?
On SWE-bench Verified software engineering, Claude Opus 5.5 scores 89.9% versus 62.4% for Llama 4 Maverick. On GPQA Diamond graduate-level STEM reasoning, Claude Opus 5.5 scores 93.2% versus 73.8% for Llama 4 Maverick (and 98% vs 91% on MATH-500).
When should you choose Claude Opus 5.5?
Choose Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic) for top-ranked frontier intelligence leader for autonomous multi-step agentic coding, repository-scale migrations, and complex scientific reasoning at a 40% lower workload cost than Opus 5 — offering a 1,024k context window, 680ms TTFT, and $4.00/1M input pricing ($0.200/1M cached reads).
When should you choose Llama 4 Maverick?
Choose Llama 4 Maverick (Meta) for high-throughput open-weight multimodal assistants, enterprise RAG, and low-cost cloud inference on Groq and Cerebras — offering a 1,048k context window, 135ms TTFT, and $0.20/1M input pricing ($0.050/1M cached reads).
