Pick Claude Opus 4.7 for long-running agentic coding workflows or precise instruction following. Pick Llama 4 Scout for largest advertised context (10m) or open weights, single-gpu friendly. Choose Llama 4 Scout if you need self-hosting or data privacy; Claude Opus 4.7 if you want a managed API.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Anthropic) and Llama 4 Scout (Meta) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. Claude Opus 4.7 is the agentic-coding-focused Opus that traded some long-context recall for long-run reliability. Llama 4 Scout is the 10M-token open-weight giant — enormous on paper, but usable recall is far smaller. They diverge most on price, context window and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences
Cost model: Llama 4 Scout ships open weights you can self-host (hardware cost only, no per-token fee), while Claude Opus 4.7 is API-metered at $5/$25 per 1M tokens. Your choice depends on whether you want zero marginal cost at the price of running infrastructure.
Context window: Llama 4 Scout holds 10× more — 10M (~15,000 pages) vs 1M (~1,500 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
Long-context recall: Claude Opus 4.7 is far stronger at 1M tokens on MRCR v2 (32.2% vs 15%) — important if you actually fill the window with documents.
Recency: Claude Opus 4.7 is the newer model by about 13 months (released April 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Specifications
Spec
Claude Opus 4.7
Llama 4 Scout
Provider
Anthropic (US)
Meta (US)
Released
April 2026
April 2025
Context window
1M (~1,500 pages)
10M (~15,000 pages)
Price (in/out)
$5/$25 per 1M tokens
Open weight (self-host / free)
Open weight?
No — API only
Yes — self-hostable
Modalities
text, image, code
text, image, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
32.2%
15%
Who wins what
Long-running agentic coding workflows: Claude Opus 4.7 — A core design strength of Claude Opus 4.7.
Precise instruction following: Claude Opus 4.7 — A core design strength of Claude Opus 4.7.
Task budgets and effort tiers: Claude Opus 4.7 — A core design strength of Claude Opus 4.7.
Largest advertised context (10M): Llama 4 Scout — A core design strength of Llama 4 Scout.
Open weights, single-GPU friendly: Llama 4 Scout — A core design strength of Llama 4 Scout.
Self-hosted, data-private deployment: Llama 4 Scout — A core design strength of Llama 4 Scout.
Lowest cost at scale: Llama 4 Scout — At Open weight (self-host / free), it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.
Largest single-prompt input: Llama 4 Scout — Its 10M window is about 10× larger, fitting roughly 15,000 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume: Llama 4 Scout — At Open weight (self-host / free) it undercuts Claude Opus 4.7, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases: Llama 4 Scout — Larger 10M window fits more in one prompt.
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs: Llama 4 Scout — Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; Claude Opus 4.7 is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is long-running agentic coding workflows: Claude Opus 4.7 — It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is largest advertised context (10m): Llama 4 Scout — That is its strongest area.
Claude Opus 4.7: where it fits
The agentic-coding-focused Opus that traded some long-context recall for long-run reliability. Released April 2026 by Anthropic, it is built for long-running agentic coding workflows, precise instruction following, task budgets and effort tiers, and large-codebase operation.
Its trade-offs are real: long-context recall regressed vs 4.6, and superseded by Opus 4.8. At $5 in / $25 out per million tokens, it sits in the premium price band.
Llama 4 Scout: where it fits
The 10M-token open-weight giant — enormous on paper, but usable recall is far smaller. Released April 2025 by Meta, it is built for largest advertised context (10M), open weights, single-GPU friendly, self-hosted, data-private deployment, and retrieval over very long inputs.
Its trade-offs: effective recall degrades far below 10M, and ~15% on long-context multi-needle reasoning. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.
The bottom line for this matchup
The defining split here is open vs. closed. Llama 4 Scout gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. Claude Opus 4.7 gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Llama 4 Scout better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Claude Opus 4.7 leans toward long-running agentic coding workflows while Llama 4 Scout leans toward largest advertised context (10m), and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 or Llama 4 Scout?
Llama 4 Scout is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while Claude Opus 4.7 is API-metered at $5/$25 per 1M tokens. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.
Which has the bigger context window?
Llama 4 Scout — 10M vs 1M, about 10× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both Claude Opus 4.7 and Llama 4 Scout together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Claude Opus 4.7, Llama 4 Scout and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Claude Opus 4.7 or Llama 4 Scout?
Claude Opus 4.7 — released April 2026, about 13 months after Llama 4 Scout.
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Llama 4 Scout
Anthropic · US | Meta · US · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick Claude Opus 4.7 for long-running agentic coding workflows or precise instruction following. Pick Llama 4 Scout for largest advertised context (10m) or open weights, single-gpu friendly. Choose Llama 4 Scout if you need self-hosting or data privacy; Claude Opus 4.7 if you want a managed API.
Claude Opus 4.7 (Anthropic) and Llama 4 Scout (Meta) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. Claude Opus 4.7 is the agentic-coding-focused Opus that traded some long-context recall for long-run reliability. Llama 4 Scout is the 10M-token open-weight giant — enormous on paper, but usable recall is far smaller. They diverge most on price, context window and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences at a glance
▸Cost model: Llama 4 Scout ships open weights you can self-host (hardware cost only, no per-token fee), while Claude Opus 4.7 is API-metered at $5/$25 per 1M tokens. Your choice depends on whether you want zero marginal cost at the price of running infrastructure.
▸Context window: Llama 4 Scout holds 10× more — 10M (~15,000 pages) vs 1M (~1,500 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
▸Long-context recall: Claude Opus 4.7 is far stronger at 1M tokens on MRCR v2 (32.2% vs 15%) — important if you actually fill the window with documents.
▸Recency: Claude Opus 4.7 is the newer model by about 13 months (released April 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Side-by-side specs
Spec
Claude Opus 4.7
Llama 4 Scout
Provider
Anthropic (US)
Meta (US)
Released
April 2026
April 2025
Context window
1M (~1,500 pages)
10M (~15,000 pages)
Price (in/out)
$5/$25 per 1M tokens
Open weight (self-host / free)
Open weight?
No — API only
Yes — self-hostable
Modalities
text, image, code
text, image, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
32.2%
15%
Who wins what
Long-running agentic coding workflows
Claude Opus 4.7
A core design strength of Claude Opus 4.7.
Precise instruction following
Claude Opus 4.7
A core design strength of Claude Opus 4.7.
Task budgets and effort tiers
Claude Opus 4.7
A core design strength of Claude Opus 4.7.
Largest advertised context (10M)
Llama 4 Scout
A core design strength of Llama 4 Scout.
Open weights, single-GPU friendly
Llama 4 Scout
A core design strength of Llama 4 Scout.
Self-hosted, data-private deployment
Llama 4 Scout
A core design strength of Llama 4 Scout.
Lowest cost at scale
Llama 4 Scout
At Open weight (self-host / free), it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.
Largest single-prompt input
Llama 4 Scout
Its 10M window is about 10× larger, fitting roughly 15,000 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ Llama 4 Scout
At Open weight (self-host / free) it undercuts Claude Opus 4.7, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases
→ Llama 4 Scout
Larger 10M window fits more in one prompt.
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs
→ Llama 4 Scout
Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; Claude Opus 4.7 is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is long-running agentic coding workflows
→ Claude Opus 4.7
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is largest advertised context (10m)
→ Llama 4 Scout
That is its strongest area.
Claude Opus 4.7: where it fits
The agentic-coding-focused Opus that traded some long-context recall for long-run reliability. Released April 2026 by Anthropic, it is built for long-running agentic coding workflows, precise instruction following, task budgets and effort tiers, and large-codebase operation.
Its trade-offs are real: long-context recall regressed vs 4.6, and superseded by Opus 4.8. At $5 in / $25 out per million tokens, it sits in the premium price band.
Llama 4 Scout: where it fits
The 10M-token open-weight giant — enormous on paper, but usable recall is far smaller. Released April 2025 by Meta, it is built for largest advertised context (10M), open weights, single-GPU friendly, self-hosted, data-private deployment, and retrieval over very long inputs.
Its trade-offs: effective recall degrades far below 10M, and ~15% on long-context multi-needle reasoning. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.
The bottom line for this matchup
The defining split here is open vs. closed. Llama 4 Scout gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. Claude Opus 4.7 gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.
Want both Claude Opus 4.7 and Llama 4 Scout without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.
Is Claude Opus 4.7 or Llama 4 Scout better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Claude Opus 4.7 leans toward long-running agentic coding workflows while Llama 4 Scout leans toward largest advertised context (10m), and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.7 or Llama 4 Scout?
Llama 4 Scout is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while Claude Opus 4.7 is API-metered at $5/$25 per 1M tokens. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.
Which has the bigger context window?
Llama 4 Scout — 10M vs 1M, about 10× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both Claude Opus 4.7 and Llama 4 Scout together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Claude Opus 4.7, Llama 4 Scout and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Claude Opus 4.7 or Llama 4 Scout?
Claude Opus 4.7 — released April 2026, about 13 months after Llama 4 Scout.
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.