Model Comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Claude Opus 4.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is 27.6x cheaper per token.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

2 benchmarks

Claude Opus 4.6 outperforms in 2 benchmarks (GPQA, MMMU-Pro), while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is better at 0 benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Fri Apr 17 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct costs less

For input processing, Claude Opus 4.6 ($5.00/1M tokens) is 14.3x more expensive than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct ($0.35/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Opus 4.6 ($25.00/1M tokens) is 62.5x more expensive than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct ($0.40/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Opus 4.6 is more expensive than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Fri Apr 17 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.6
Input tokens$5.00
Output tokens$25.00
Best providerAnthropic
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Input tokens$0.35
Output tokens$0.40
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Claude Opus 4.6 accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to Llama 3.2 90B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. Both models can generate responses up to 128,000 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.6
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Fri Apr 17 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Both Claude Opus 4.6 and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Claude Opus 4.6

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Opus 4.6 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.

Claude Opus 4.6

Proprietary

Closed source

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Llama 3.2

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Opus 4.6 was released on 2026-02-05, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct was released on 2024-09-25.

Claude Opus 4.6 is 17 months newer than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct.

Claude Opus 4.6

Feb 5, 2026

2 months ago

1.4yr newer
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Sep 25, 2024

1.6 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

Claude Opus 4.6 is available from Anthropic. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is available from DeepInfra, Bedrock, Fireworks, Together, Hyperbolic.

Claude Opus 4.6

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $5.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $25.00/1M

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.35/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.40/1M
bedrock logo
AWS Bedrock
Input Price:Input: $0.72/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.72/1M
fireworks logo
Fireworks
Input Price:Input: $0.89/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.89/1M
together logo
Together
Input Price:Input: $1.20/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M
hyperbolic logo
Hyperbolic
Input Price:Input: $2.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $2.00/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Anthropic
Larger context window (1,000,000 tokens)
Higher GPQA score (91.3% vs 46.7%)
Higher MMMU-Pro score (77.3% vs 45.2%)
Meta
Less expensive input tokens
Less expensive output tokens
Has open weights

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.6
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Opus 4.6 vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Claude Opus 4.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Claude Opus 4.6 is made by Anthropic and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is made by Meta. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.
Claude Opus 4.6 scores Vending-Bench 2: 100.0%, AIME 2025: 99.8%, Tau2 Telecom: 99.3%, Graphwalks parents >128k: 95.4%, MRCR v2 (8-needle): 93.0%. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct scores AI2D: 92.3%, DocVQA: 90.1%, MGSM: 86.9%, MMLU: 86.0%, ChartQA: 85.5%.
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is 14.3x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Opus 4.6 costs $5.00/M input and $25.00/M output via anthropic. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct costs $0.35/M input and $0.40/M output via deepinfra.
Claude Opus 4.6 supports 1.0M tokens and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct supports 128K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.
Key differences include context window (1.0M vs 128K), input pricing ($5.00 vs $0.35/M), licensing (Proprietary vs Llama 3.2). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
Claude Opus 4.6 is developed by Anthropic and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is developed by Meta.