Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Llama 4 Scout

Anthropic · US  |  Meta · US · Updated June 2026

Quick verdict

Pick Claude Sonnet 5.5 for terminal-bench 4.0 agentic coding jumps to 70.6%, up from claude sonnet 5's 10.3% or same $2/$10 per million token pricing as sonnet 5, with cache-read price cut 50% to $0.10/mtok as of october 7, 2026. 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 Sonnet 5.5 if you want a managed API.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 (Anthropic) and Llama 4 Scout (Meta) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. Claude Sonnet 5.5 is anthropic's September 28, 2026 mid-tier update — same $2/$10 pricing as Sonnet 5 but a large agentic-coding jump (Terminal-Bench 4.0: 70.6% vs 10.3%). 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

Side-by-side specs

SpecClaude Sonnet 5.5Llama 4 Scout
ProviderAnthropic (US) Meta (US)
ReleasedSeptember 28, 2026 April 2025
Context window1M tokens (~1,500 pages) 10M (~15,000 pages)
Price (in/out)$2/$10 per 1M tokens Open weight (self-host / free)
Open weight?No — API only Yes — self-hostable
Modalitiestext, image, code text, image, code
SWE-Bench VerifiedNot published Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1MNot published 15%

Who wins what

Terminal-Bench 4.0 agentic coding jumps to 70.6%, up from Claude Sonnet 5's 10.3%

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Anthropic's September 28, 2026 mid-tier update — same $2/$10 pricing as Sonnet 5 but a large agentic-coding jump (Terminal-Bench 4.0: 70.6% vs 10.3%) — and it is the newer of the two.

Same $2/$10 per million token pricing as Sonnet 5, with cache-read price cut 50% to $0.10/MTok as of October 7, 2026

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Claude Sonnet 5.5 lists same $2/$10 per million token pricing as Sonnet 5, with cache-read price cut 50% to $0.10/MTok as of October 7, 2026 among its strengths; Llama 4 Scout does not.

Scores close to Opus 5.5 on several benchmarks (e.g. GDPval-AA v2.1 knowledge-work Elo) at a fraction of the cost

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Claude Sonnet 5.5 lists scores close to Opus 5.5 on several benchmarks (e.g. GDPval-AA v2.1 knowledge-work Elo) at a fraction of the cost among its strengths; Llama 4 Scout does not.

Largest advertised context (10M)

Llama 4 Scout

Its 10M window holds about 10× more than Claude Sonnet 5.5's 1M tokens in a single prompt.

Open weights, single-GPU friendly

Llama 4 Scout

Open weights make this possible at all — Claude Sonnet 5.5 is API-only, so it cannot leave the vendor's servers.

Self-hosted, data-private deployment

Llama 4 Scout

The 10M-token open-weight giant — enormous on paper, but usable recall is far smaller — and it carries the larger 10M context.

Lowest cost at scale

Llama 4 Scout

Its weights are open, so at volume you pay for your own hardware instead of Claude Sonnet 5.5's $2/$10 per 1M tokens.

Largest single-prompt input

Llama 4 Scout

Its 10M window is about 10× larger than Claude Sonnet 5.5's 1M tokens, 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 Sonnet 5.5, 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 Sonnet 5.5 is API-only.

Anyone whose priority is terminal-bench 4.0 agentic coding jumps to 70.6%, up from claude sonnet 5's 10.3%

→ Claude Sonnet 5.5

It is specifically built for that.

Anyone whose priority is largest advertised context (10m)

→ Llama 4 Scout

That is its strongest area.

Claude Sonnet 5.5: where it fits

Anthropic's September 28, 2026 mid-tier update — same $2/$10 pricing as Sonnet 5 but a large agentic-coding jump (Terminal-Bench 4.0: 70.6% vs 10.3%). Released September 28, 2026 by Anthropic, it is built for terminal-Bench 4.0 agentic coding jumps to 70.6%, up from Claude Sonnet 5's 10.3%, same $2/$10 per million token pricing as Sonnet 5, with cache-read price cut 50% to $0.10/MTok as of October 7, 2026, scores close to Opus 5.5 on several benchmarks (e.g. GDPval-AA v2.1 knowledge-work Elo) at a fraction of the cost, and anthropic highlights stronger document/slide generation, spreadsheet work, and visual chart recognition (Chartography: 61.6%).

Its trade-offs are real: anthropic is explicit that Opus 5.5 'remains clearly stronger' on complex, open-ended work requiring sustained judgment, 1M-token context isn't uniformly available across every platform/plan, consistent with the rest of the 5.5 family, and mid-tier update released a week after Opus 5.5 (Sept 22) — Haiku 5.5 followed Oct 7 to complete the family. At $2 in / $10 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid 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 Sonnet 5.5 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 Sonnet 5.5 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.

See pricing

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Sonnet 5.5 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 Sonnet 5.5 leans toward terminal-bench 4.0 agentic coding jumps to 70.6%, up from claude sonnet 5's 10.3% 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 Sonnet 5.5 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 Sonnet 5.5 is API-metered at $2/$10 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 tokens, about 10× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.

Can I use both Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Llama 4 Scout together?

Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Claude Sonnet 5.5, 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 Sonnet 5.5 or Llama 4 Scout?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 — released September 28, 2026, about 18 months after Llama 4 Scout.

Related comparisons

Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.