whichLlmmodel
Back to Dashboard

AnthropicClaude Opus 4.7VSMetaLlama-3.1 405B

Analysis by:the whichllmmodel Editorial Team|Updated: June 2026

Our Take

We recommend Claude Opus 4.7 if you need peak intelligence and a much larger context window for full-repo analysis, or the free Llama-3.1 405B if you want zero API costs and total offline privacy. While Claude Opus 4.7 offers superior reasoning capability, Llama-3.1 405B runs entirely on your own local hardware. Choose Claude Opus 4.7 for repository-scale analysis, or Llama-3.1 405B for zero-cost offline privacy and basic standalone code completion and simple functions.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
  • Reasoning Accuracy: Both models were evaluated on the GPQA Diamond benchmark. Claude Opus 4.7 scored 94.2%, while Llama-3.1 405B scored 50.7% (+43.5% gap).
  • Coding Performance: Evaluated on different benchmarks. Llama-3.1 405B scored 89% on HumanEval (basic standalone code completion and simple functions), while Claude Opus 4.7 scored 64.3% on SWE-bench Pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning).
  • Context Window: Claude Opus 4.7 supports a 1M context window, while Llama-3.1 405B supports 131k.
  • Hosting Model: Llama-3.1 405B runs locally for $0 API costs, while Claude Opus 4.7 is a cloud API.
    • Was this recommendation helpful?
    Model Specs

    Claude Opus 4.7

    Website

    Benchmarks & Scores

    Coding (swe-bench-pro)
    64.3%

    complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning

    Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+43.5%)
    94.2%

    graduate-level science QA

    Cost & Context

    Cost (per 1M tokens)
    $10.00Input: $5.00 | Output: $25.00
    Context WindowLarger
    1.05M tokens
    Model Specs

    Llama-3.1 405B

    Open Source
    🤗HF

    Benchmarks & Scores

    Coding (human-eval)
    89%

    basic standalone code completion and simple functions

    Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
    50.7%

    graduate-level science QA

    Cost & Context

    Cost (per 1M tokens)
    Self HostLocal execution (zero API fees)
    Context Window
    131.07k tokens
    Read our data collection methodology

    Frequently Asked Questions about Claude Opus 4.7 vs Llama-3.1 405B

    For coding tasks, Claude Opus 4.7 scores 64.3% on swe-bench-pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning), while Llama-3.1 405B scores 89% on human-eval (basic standalone code completion and simple functions).

    Related Matchups

    Explore similar comparisons for Claude Opus 4.7 and Llama-3.1 405B.

    Browse More Comparisons
    AnthropicClaude Opus 4.7
    VS
    OpenAIGPT-5.5
    Compare Specs
    MetaLlama-3.1 405B
    VS
    OpenAIGPT-5.6 Sol
    Compare Specs
    AnthropicClaude Opus 4.7
    VS
    OpenAIGPT-5.6 Terra
    Compare Specs

    Do you want to find a model for your constraints?

    Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.

    Open Model Finder