Claude 3 Opus vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Claude 3 Opus and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct are closely matched at 10.1 and 5.4 on the LLM Stats Score. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is 82.8x cheaper per token.
Anthropic · Meta · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Claude 3 Opus and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 10.1 and 5.4.
In the 4 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude 3 Opus wins 3; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is roughly 82.8x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Claude 3 Opus also accepts a larger context window (200,000 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose Claude 3 Opus
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 3 of 4 exact shared results
- you process long inputs — it offers a 200,000 token context window
Choose Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
- cost matters — it's about 82.8x cheaper per token
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2024
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
11 reported for Claude 3 Opus · 13 for Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Claude 3 Opus outperforms in 3 benchmarks (GPQA, MGSM, MMLU), while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is better at 1 benchmark (MATH).
Claude 3 Opus shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Claude 3 Opus ($15.00/1M tokens) is 42.9x more expensive than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct ($0.35/1M tokens).
For output processing, Claude 3 Opus ($75.00/1M tokens) is 187.5x more expensive than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct ($0.40/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Claude 3 Opus is more expensive than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Claude 3 Opus accepts 200,000 input tokens compared to Llama 3.2 90B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. Claude 3 Opus can generate longer responses up to 200,000 tokens, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is limited to 128,000 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Both Claude 3 Opus and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct support multimodal inputs.
They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.
Claude 3 Opus
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
License
Usage and distribution terms
Claude 3 Opus is licensed under a proprietary license, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct uses Llama 3.2.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Proprietary
Closed source
Llama 3.2
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Claude 3 Opus was released on 2024-02-29, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct was released on 2024-09-25.
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is 7 months newer than Claude 3 Opus.
Feb 29, 2024
2.5 years ago
Sep 25, 2024
1.9 years ago
6mo newerKnowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
Claude 3 Opus is available from Anthropic, Bedrock, Google. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is available from DeepInfra, Bedrock, Fireworks, Together, Hyperbolic.
Claude 3 Opus
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Claude 3 Opus and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Claude 3 Opus vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct.