+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Claude Opus 4.1 vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Claude Opus 4.1 leads with 34.2% higher average benchmark score. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct offers 24.0K more tokens in context window than Claude Opus 4.1. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is $89.25 cheaper per million tokens. Overall, Claude Opus 4.1 is the stronger choice for coding tasks.
+
+
+
+
Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.1 represents an iteration within the Claude 4 Opus line, built to deliver refined performance in complex reasoning and analysis tasks. Developed as part of Anthropic's flagship tier, it incorporates improvements to the foundational capabilities that define the Opus family of models.
+
+
+
+
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B was developed as a flagship-tier open-source model, designed to provide advanced capabilities with 90 billion parameters. Built to serve applications requiring high-quality reasoning and generation, it represents a powerful option within the Llama 3.2 series for demanding tasks.
10 months newer
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Meta
2024-09-25
Claude Opus 4.1
Anthropic
2025-08-05
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Pricing Comparison
Cost per million tokens (USD)
+
+
+
+
Claude Opus 4.1
Input:$15.00
Output:$75.00
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Input:$0.35
Output:$0.40($89.25 cheaper)
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 1 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Claude Opus 4.1
Average Score:80.9%(+34.2%)
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Average Score:46.7%
Provider Availability & Performance
Available providers and their performance metrics
+
+
+
+
Claude Opus 4.1
4 providers
Anthropic
Throughput: 100 tok/s
Latency: 0.5ms
Bedrock
Throughput: 120 tok/s
Latency: 0.5ms
Throughput: 42 tok/s
Latency: 0.4ms
ZeroEval
Throughput: 42 tok/s
Latency: 0.4ms
+
+
+
+
Claude Opus 4.1
Avg Score:80.9%(+34.2%)
Providers:4
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Avg Score:46.7%
Providers:5