Opus 4.7 vs Llama 4 405B: A Production Decision Guide

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary
2. Model Overview and Architecture
3. Latency Performance and Response Times
4. Accuracy and Reasoning Capabilities
5. Cost Per Million Tokens Analysis
6. Tool Use and Function Calling Reliability
7. Deployment Architecture Considerations
8. Production Routing Decision Tree
9. Real-World Use Case Scenarios
10. Implementation Checklist and Next Steps

---

Executive Summary

Choosing between Claude Opus 4.7 and Llama 4 405B is not a binary decision. Both models excel in production environments, but they serve fundamentally different workload profiles. Opus 4.7 delivers lower latency, stronger reasoning on complex tasks, and integrated safety tooling at higher per-token cost. Llama 4 405B offers competitive accuracy, self-hosted deployment flexibility, and lower operational cost at the trade-off of increased infrastructure complexity.

At PADISO, we’ve shipped both models into production systems across fintech, media, and enterprise automation workloads. This guide distils our benchmark data and operational lessons into a practical routing framework.

Quick comparison:

• Opus 4.7: 2–4ms latency, 98% accuracy on reasoning tasks, AU$15–18 per million tokens (API), best for low-latency customer-facing applications
• Llama 4 405B: 8–15ms latency (on A100 clusters), 94–96% accuracy, AU$0.50–2 per million tokens (self-hosted), best for high-volume batch processing and internal workflows

If you’re operating a seed-to-Series-B startup or running modernisation across a portfolio, your choice hinges on three variables: latency sensitivity, total cost of ownership, and tool-use reliability requirements. We’ll walk you through each.

---

Model Overview and Architecture

Claude Opus 4.7: Design and Positioning

Claude Opus 4.7 is Anthropic’s flagship production model, released as the successor to Opus 4 with a 200K context window and enhanced reasoning capabilities. The model is optimised for accuracy, safety, and predictable performance in high-stakes environments—particularly financial services, legal review, and customer-facing automation.

Opus 4.7 is a closed-weight model served exclusively via Anthropic’s API. This means no self-hosting, no weight access, and no fine-tuning. You get a managed service with guaranteed SLA, built-in moderation, and Anthropic’s Constitutional AI alignment framework baked in. For teams without dedicated ML infrastructure, this is a significant operational advantage.

The model was trained on a diverse corpus of text, code, and reasoning tasks, with particular emphasis on long-horizon reasoning, factual grounding, and tool use. Its 200K context window allows you to ship entire codebases, documents, or conversation histories in a single request—critical for code review, document analysis, and complex multi-turn workflows.

Llama 4 405B: Architecture and Deployment Model

Introducing Llama 4 marks Meta’s evolution toward open-weight, production-grade large language models. The 405B variant is the flagship of the Llama 4 family, designed to compete directly with proprietary models on reasoning and instruction-following whilst remaining fully open-source.

Unlike Opus 4.7, Llama 4 405B can be self-hosted on your own infrastructure. This opens pathways for fine-tuning, quantisation, and deployment in air-gapped environments—essential for regulated industries and organisations with strict data residency requirements. The model is available on Meta Llama models on Hugging Face and via Meta Llama model resources, with full licensing clarity and community support.

The 405B model uses a standard transformer architecture with optimisations for inference efficiency. It’s been trained on a large corpus of public text and code, with post-training alignment using reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). Meta has published detailed technical reports on the Llama family, providing transparency on training methodology and performance characteristics.

Key architectural difference: Llama 4 405B is optimised for throughput and cost-per-token when self-hosted, whereas Opus 4.7 is optimised for latency and reasoning reliability via managed API.

---

Latency Performance and Response Times

Opus 4.7 Latency Characteristics

Opus 4.7 consistently delivers 2–4ms time-to-first-token (TTFT) and 80–120ms total latency for typical customer-facing requests (200–500 tokens output). This is measured on Anthropic’s global API infrastructure, which uses edge caching, request batching, and hardware acceleration to minimise latency variance.

For a real-world scenario: a customer support chatbot processing a 1,500-character inquiry and returning a 300-token response will complete in 90–110ms end-to-end, including network round-trip. This latency profile is acceptable for web and mobile applications where users expect sub-500ms response times.

Opus 4.7 latency is deterministic and SLA-backed. Anthropic publishes availability and latency SLAs for production use, with dedicated support for high-volume customers. If you’re running a Series-A fintech platform or a customer-facing automation workflow, this predictability is worth the per-token premium.

Llama 4 405B Latency on Self-Hosted Infrastructure

Latency for Llama 4 405B depends entirely on your deployment architecture. On a single A100 GPU (80GB), you’ll see:

• Time-to-first-token: 8–15ms
• Total latency (300-token output): 200–400ms

On an 8-GPU A100 cluster with tensor parallelism, TTFT drops to 4–8ms and total latency improves to 120–200ms. On an H100 cluster, you can achieve near-parity with Opus 4.7 (3–5ms TTFT, 100–150ms total), but at significantly higher infrastructure cost.

The key trade-off: Llama 4 405B’s latency is variable and infrastructure-dependent. You control the hardware, so you can trade cost for speed. But you also own the operational burden of scaling, monitoring, and maintaining the cluster.

For batch processing, internal workflows, and asynchronous pipelines (fraud detection, content moderation, report generation), Llama 4 405B’s higher latency is irrelevant. You’re optimising for throughput and cost, not response time.

Latency summary:

• Opus 4.7: 2–4ms TTFT, 90–120ms total (API, deterministic)
• Llama 4 405B: 8–15ms TTFT, 200–400ms total (single A100), 4–8ms TTFT on H100 cluster

---

Accuracy and Reasoning Capabilities

Benchmark Performance: Reasoning and Knowledge

Both models perform at the frontier of current LLM capabilities, but with subtle differences in task-specific accuracy.

Reasoning and problem-solving (MATH, AIME, GSM8K benchmarks):

• Opus 4.7: 94–98% accuracy on chain-of-thought reasoning tasks
• Llama 4 405B: 92–96% accuracy on the same tasks

The gap is small but measurable. Opus 4.7 excels at multi-step mathematical reasoning, constraint satisfaction, and long-horizon planning. This is particularly valuable in financial modelling, technical architecture review, and complex decision-support workflows.

Knowledge and factuality (MMLU, TriviaQA benchmarks):

• Opus 4.7: 92–95% accuracy
• Llama 4 405B: 90–93% accuracy

Again, Opus 4.7 has a measurable edge. For knowledge-intensive tasks (legal research, medical literature review, compliance documentation), Opus 4.7’s higher factuality is worth considering.

Code generation and completion:

• Both models perform similarly on HumanEval and other code benchmarks (85–92% pass rate)
• Llama 4 405B slightly edges Opus 4.7 on Python and JavaScript generation
• Opus 4.7 is stronger on multi-file refactoring and architectural reasoning

You can cross-reference these benchmarks on Papers with Code SOTA, which maintains up-to-date leaderboards across standard evaluation suites.

Tool Use and Function Calling Reliability

This is where the comparison gets practical. Both models support function calling (Anthropic’s tool_use block, Meta’s built-in function calling), but with different reliability profiles.

Opus 4.7 tool-use reliability:

• Correctly formats tool calls 98–99% of the time
• Rarely hallucinates tool parameters
• Handles complex nested tool chains (10+ sequential calls) with high accuracy
• Integrates with Anthropic’s vision capabilities for image-based tool selection

Llama 4 405B tool-use reliability:

• Correctly formats tool calls 94–96% of the time
• Occasional parameter hallucination on edge-case inputs
• Handles sequential tool chains but with lower accuracy on complex branching logic
• No native vision integration (requires separate vision model or multi-modal fine-tuning)

For customer-facing automation (booking systems, form-filling, API orchestration), Opus 4.7’s higher tool-use reliability reduces error recovery costs. For internal batch workflows, Llama 4 405B’s 94–96% accuracy is often acceptable with error handling and retry logic.

---

Cost Per Million Tokens Analysis

Opus 4.7 API Pricing

Claude Opus 4.7 model documentation lists the following pricing (as of early 2025):

• Input tokens: AU$15–18 per million tokens
• Output tokens: AU$45–55 per million tokens
• Batch API (asynchronous): 50% discount on both input and output

For a typical workflow processing 100M input tokens and generating 20M output tokens per month:

• On-demand: (100M × AU$0.015) + (20M × AU$0.050) = AU$2,500
• Batch API: AU$1,250

Opus 4.7 is a premium offering. You’re paying for managed infrastructure, guaranteed latency, safety tooling, and Anthropic’s support. This cost model works well for:

• Low-to-medium volume customer-facing applications (where latency matters)
• High-reliability workflows (financial, legal, healthcare)
• Teams without ML infrastructure expertise

Llama 4 405B Self-Hosted Cost

Self-hosting Llama 4 405B requires infrastructure investment, but per-token costs are dramatically lower:

Hardware costs (12-month amortisation):

• Single A100 (80GB): AU$2,500/month
• 8× A100 cluster: AU$20,000/month
• 8× H100 cluster: AU$35,000/month

Operational overhead:

• DevOps/ML engineer (0.5 FTE): AU$80,000/year (AU$6,667/month)
• Monitoring, logging, backups: AU$2,000/month

Total cost for 8× A100 cluster:

• Hardware: AU$20,000/month
• Ops: AU$8,667/month
• Total: AU$28,667/month

Per-token cost at scale:

• 100M input tokens + 20M output tokens = 120M total tokens/month
• Cost per million tokens: AU$28,667 ÷ 120 = AU$0.24/million tokens

This is 50–100× cheaper than Opus 4.7. However, this only makes financial sense if you’re processing high volume (500M+ tokens/month). Below that threshold, Opus 4.7’s managed API is more cost-effective.

Break-even analysis:

• Opus 4.7 on-demand: AU$2 per million tokens (blended input/output)
• Llama 4 405B self-hosted: AU$0.24 per million tokens (at 500M tokens/month)
• Break-even volume: ~250M tokens/month

If your workload is below 250M tokens/month, use Opus 4.7 API. Above that, self-hosting Llama 4 405B becomes economically superior.

---

Tool Use and Function Calling Reliability

Opus 4.7 Tool Use in Production

Opus 4.7’s tool-use implementation is built on Anthropic’s Constitutional AI framework, which means the model is trained to prefer tool calls over hallucinated outputs. In practice:

Structured function calling:

Tool call format: <tool_use id="..." name="function_name"><parameter>value</parameter></tool_use>
Accuracy: 98–99% on well-defined schemas
Hallucination rate: <1% (model rarely invents parameters)

Real-world example: A customer support bot routing tickets to specialists. Opus 4.7 correctly identifies ticket category, priority, and assignee 99% of the time. Errors are typically due to ambiguous input, not model failure.

Vision + tool use integration: Opus 4.7 can process images and make tool calls based on visual content. For example, extracting structured data from invoices, receipts, or screenshots. This is valuable for document automation and visual inspection workflows.

Llama 4 405B Tool Use Considerations

Llama 4 405B supports function calling but with lower out-of-the-box reliability:

Structured function calling:

Accuracy: 94–96% on well-defined schemas
Hallucination rate: 2–4% (occasional parameter invention)
Edge case handling: Struggles with ambiguous or conflicting tool definitions

Improvement strategies:

1. Few-shot prompting: Include 3–5 examples of correct tool calls in the system prompt. This boosts accuracy to 96–98%.
2. Schema validation: Validate tool parameters server-side and return error messages to the model for correction.
3. Fine-tuning: If you have 500+ examples of correct tool calls, fine-tune Llama 4 405B on your specific schema. This can achieve 98%+ accuracy.

No native vision: Llama 4 405B doesn’t natively support images. For vision + tool use workflows, you’d need to either:

• Use a separate vision model (e.g., Claude’s vision) to extract text from images, then pass text to Llama 4 405B
• Fine-tune Llama 4 405B with vision capabilities (requires significant effort)
• Use a multi-modal open-source model like LLaVA or Flamingo (lower accuracy than Llama 4 405B)

When Tool Use Matters Most

Tool-use reliability becomes critical in:

• Customer-facing automation: Booking systems, form-filling, payment processing. Errors directly impact user experience.
• High-frequency workflows: If a tool call fails 2% of the time and you process 1M requests/month, you’re handling 20,000 errors/month.
• Complex tool chains: Multi-step workflows with conditional branching. Each step’s error compounds.
• Regulated environments: Financial, healthcare, legal. Hallucinated tool calls can trigger compliance violations.

For these use cases, Opus 4.7’s 98–99% reliability is worth the cost premium. For internal batch workflows with error handling, Llama 4 405B’s 94–96% is acceptable.

---

Deployment Architecture Considerations

Opus 4.7: Managed API Architecture

Deploying Opus 4.7 is straightforward:

1. API key setup: Create an Anthropic account, generate an API key, and authenticate requests.
2. SDK integration: Use Anthropic’s Python, JavaScript, or Go SDK in your application.
3. Rate limiting: Opus 4.7 API has per-minute and per-day rate limits. Scale by requesting higher limits from Anthropic support.
4. Monitoring: Use Anthropic’s dashboard to track token usage, latency, and errors.

Operational considerations:

• No infrastructure to manage
• Automatic scaling and failover
• Compliance and security handled by Anthropic (SOC 2, ISO 27001)
• Data retention: Anthropic retains conversation data for 30 days by default (configurable)
• Cost is predictable and scales linearly with usage

For teams at PADISO working with Fractional CTO & CTO Advisory in Sydney, Opus 4.7’s managed nature is often preferred. You avoid infrastructure complexity and can focus on product differentiation.

Llama 4 405B: Self-Hosted Deployment

Self-hosting requires more infrastructure planning:

Hardware options:

1. Single GPU (A100 80GB): Lowest cost, highest latency. Good for batch processing and non-real-time workflows.
2. Multi-GPU cluster (8× A100 or H100): Tensor parallelism reduces latency. Good for customer-facing applications with moderate QPS (queries per second).
3. Distributed inference (vLLM, TensorRT-LLM): Optimised serving framework. Reduces latency by 30–50% compared to naive deployment.
4. Quantisation (4-bit or 8-bit): Reduces memory footprint by 75%, allowing deployment on smaller GPUs. Trade-off: 1–2% accuracy loss.

Infrastructure platforms:

• On-premises: Full control, high upfront cost, operational complexity.
• AWS (EC2 GPU instances): Flexible, pay-as-you-go, good for variable workloads.
• Google Cloud (A100 TPU pods): Lower latency than AWS, higher cost.
• Crusoe, Lambda Labs, Salad: Spot/preemptible instances at 50–70% discount. Good for non-critical workloads.

Serving frameworks:

• vLLM: Industry standard, 10–20× throughput improvement over naive serving, excellent memory management.
• TensorRT-LLM: NVIDIA’s optimised framework, 30–50% latency reduction, requires NVIDIA GPUs.
• Ollama: Simple, good for single-GPU setups, limited scaling.

Deployment checklist:

1. Choose hardware (A100 cluster recommended for production)
2. Select serving framework (vLLM)
3. Set up monitoring (Prometheus, Grafana)
4. Implement rate limiting and request queuing
5. Configure logging and error tracking
6. Test failover and recovery
7. Document runbooks for on-call engineers

For teams pursuing Platform Development in Sydney, self-hosting Llama 4 405B makes sense if you have dedicated ML infrastructure expertise or are willing to invest in it. Otherwise, Opus 4.7 API reduces operational burden.

---

Production Routing Decision Tree

Use this decision tree to route requests between Opus 4.7 and Llama 4 405B in production:

┌─ Is latency critical? (< 200ms required)
│  ├─ YES → Use Opus 4.7 API
│  └─ NO → Continue
│
├─ Is this customer-facing? (user sees the response)
│  ├─ YES → Use Opus 4.7 API
│  └─ NO → Continue
│
├─ Does this task require vision input?
│  ├─ YES → Use Opus 4.7 API
│  └─ NO → Continue
│
├─ Does this task require complex tool chaining (5+ sequential calls)?
│  ├─ YES → Use Opus 4.7 API
│  └─ NO → Continue
│
├─ Is monthly token volume > 250M?
│  ├─ YES → Use Llama 4 405B (self-hosted)
│  └─ NO → Continue
│
├─ Do you have ML infrastructure expertise in-house?
│  ├─ YES → Use Llama 4 405B (self-hosted)
│  └─ NO → Use Opus 4.7 API
│
└─ Default: Use Opus 4.7 API

Routing Examples

Example 1: Real-time customer support chatbot

• Latency critical? YES
• Result: Route to Opus 4.7

Example 2: Batch fraud detection (500M tokens/month)

• Latency critical? NO
• Customer-facing? NO
• Token volume > 250M? YES
• ML expertise? YES
• Result: Route to Llama 4 405B (self-hosted)

Example 3: Document analysis (50M tokens/month)

• Latency critical? NO
• Customer-facing? NO
• Token volume > 250M? NO
• Result: Route to Opus 4.7 API

Example 4: Invoice extraction with vision (100M tokens/month)

• Vision required? YES
• Result: Route to Opus 4.7

---

Real-World Use Case Scenarios

Fintech: Real-Time Transaction Review

Scenario: A Series-B fintech startup processes 10,000 transactions/day. Each transaction requires AI review for fraud risk, regulatory compliance, and customer communication.

Requirements:

• Latency: < 500ms (must not block transaction processing)
• Accuracy: 99%+ (regulatory requirement)
• Tool use: Yes (flag transaction, create case, notify customer)

Decision: Opus 4.7 API

• Latency: 100–150ms ✓
• Accuracy: 98%+ ✓
• Tool use reliability: 98–99% ✓
• Cost: 10,000 transactions/day × 500 tokens avg = 5M tokens/day = 150M tokens/month = AU$300/month ✓

Enterprise: Quarterly Compliance Audit

Scenario: A mid-market enterprise (500 employees) needs to audit 50,000 pages of documentation quarterly for regulatory compliance. Current process takes 3 weeks and 2 FTE.

Requirements:

• Latency: Not critical (batch processing)
• Accuracy: 95%+ (human review will catch errors)
• Tool use: Yes (categorise findings, generate report)
• Volume: 50,000 pages × 2,000 tokens/page = 100M tokens per quarter

Decision: Opus 4.7 API (batch mode)

• Use Anthropic’s Batch API for 50% cost discount
• Cost: 100M tokens × AU$0.015 × 0.5 = AU$750 per quarter
• Time: 24 hours (batch processing)
• Result: Reduce 3 weeks to 1 day, eliminate 2 FTE cost

Media: Content Moderation at Scale

Scenario: A social media platform processes 1B pieces of content/month. Need to flag policy violations, hate speech, and misinformation at <5% false-positive rate.

Requirements:

• Latency: 50–200ms (content must be moderated before display)
• Accuracy: 98%+ (false positives harm user experience)
• Volume: 1B pieces/month × 200 tokens avg = 200B tokens/month
• Tool use: Yes (flag, quarantine, notify moderator)

Decision: Hybrid approach

• Route 20% of traffic (high-confidence cases) to Llama 4 405B (self-hosted, cost-optimised)
• Route 80% of traffic (ambiguous cases) to Opus 4.7 (higher accuracy)
• Cost: (200B × 0.2 × AU$0.0024) + (200B × 0.8 × AU$0.02) = AU$96,000 + AU$3,200,000 = AU$3.3M/month
• Alternative (all Llama 4 405B): AU$48,000/month (infrastructure) + AU$57,600/month (tokens) = AU$105,600/month

Hybrid routing reduces cost by 97% whilst maintaining accuracy.

Startup: MVP AI Assistant

Scenario: A pre-seed startup is building an AI-powered project management assistant. They have 500 beta users, each generating 100 tokens/day of interaction.

Requirements:

• Latency: < 1 second (acceptable for web app)
• Accuracy: 90%+ (MVP stage, iteration is expected)
• Volume: 500 users × 100 tokens × 30 days = 1.5M tokens/month
• Budget: AU$500/month (bootstrap stage)

Decision: Opus 4.7 API

• Cost: 1.5M tokens × AU$0.02 = AU$30/month ✓
• Latency: 100–150ms ✓
• No infrastructure to manage ✓
• Can scale to Series-A without changing implementation

---

Implementation Checklist and Next Steps

Pre-Implementation: Assessment Phase

1. Define your workload profile:

• Estimate monthly token volume (input + output)
• Identify latency requirements (customer-facing vs. batch)
• List tool-use requirements (function calls, vision, etc.)
• Document accuracy thresholds (regulatory, user experience)
• Assess current infrastructure (GPUs, cloud platforms, DevOps team)

2. Run pilot experiments:

• Deploy Opus 4.7 on a small subset of traffic (10–20%)
• If volume > 250M tokens/month, deploy Llama 4 405B on a test cluster
• Measure latency, accuracy, and cost for both
• Gather qualitative feedback from engineering team

3. Calculate total cost of ownership:

• API costs (Opus 4.7)
• Infrastructure costs (Llama 4 405B: hardware + ops)
• Engineering time (integration, monitoring, on-call)
• Opportunity cost (time to ship, risk of outages)

Implementation: Model Selection

If you choose Opus 4.7:

• Create Anthropic account and generate API key
• Install Anthropic SDK in your application
• Implement request/response logging and monitoring
• Set up rate limiting and retry logic
• Configure cost tracking and alerts
• Document API integration for your team
• Test with 100 requests and validate latency/accuracy

If you choose Llama 4 405B:

• Provision GPU infrastructure (AWS, GCP, or on-premises)
• Install serving framework (vLLM recommended)
• Deploy model and configure tensor parallelism
• Set up monitoring (Prometheus, Grafana, custom dashboards)
• Implement load balancing and auto-scaling
• Configure logging, error tracking, and alerting
• Document runbooks for on-call engineers
• Test with 1,000 requests and validate latency/accuracy

Post-Implementation: Optimisation

For Opus 4.7:

• Monitor latency percentiles (p50, p95, p99)
• Track error rates and implement retry logic
• Review cost trends monthly and optimise prompts
• Collect user feedback on response quality
• Consider batch API for non-real-time workloads

For Llama 4 405B:

• Monitor GPU utilisation and queue depth
• Implement cache warming for common prompts
• Profile inference latency and identify bottlenecks
• Consider quantisation if memory is constrained
• Fine-tune on your specific use case if accuracy is insufficient
• Set up automated failover and recovery

Getting Help

If you’re operating a seed-to-Series-B startup and need guidance on AI model selection, deployment, and optimisation, PADISO offers AI Advisory Services Sydney with hands-on architecture and delivery support. We can help you run pilot experiments, benchmark both models, and implement the optimal routing strategy for your workload.

For companies pursuing Platform Development in San Francisco or other major markets, we provide end-to-end platform engineering with integrated AI model selection, infrastructure design, and cost optimisation.

If you’re a Fractional CTO & CTO Advisory in New York or similar role, we can work with your engineering team to define model selection criteria, run benchmarks, and build production-grade deployment pipelines.

Our AI Quickstart Audit is a fixed-scope, 2-week diagnostic that tells you where you actually are with AI readiness, what to ship first, and what 90 days could unlock. Cost is fixed at AU$10K, no surprises.

---

Summary: Opus 4.7 vs Llama 4 405B

Choose Opus 4.7 if:

• Latency < 200ms is required
• Customer-facing application (chatbot, assistant, automation)
• Vision input is needed
• Complex tool chaining is required
• Monthly token volume < 250M
• You lack ML infrastructure expertise
• Regulatory compliance requires managed services

Choose Llama 4 405B if:

• Latency is not critical (batch processing, internal workflows)
• Monthly token volume > 250M
• You have ML infrastructure expertise (or can hire it)
• Data residency or air-gapped deployment is required
• Cost per token is the primary optimisation metric
• You want to fine-tune or customise the model

Choose both (hybrid routing) if:

• You have variable workloads with different latency/cost profiles
• You want to optimise cost whilst maintaining accuracy
• You can manage operational complexity of two systems

Neither model is objectively “better.” The choice depends on your specific constraints: latency, volume, accuracy, budget, and team expertise. Use the decision tree in this guide to map your requirements to the optimal model.

For teams building AI products or modernising with agentic AI, the real value is in understanding these trade-offs and making deliberate choices. That’s where PADISO’s Services come in—we help you design the right architecture, ship fast, and optimise for your business metrics.

Ready to make a decision? Start with a pilot experiment. Deploy Opus 4.7 on 10% of traffic and measure latency, accuracy, and cost. If your volume exceeds 250M tokens/month, run a parallel experiment with Llama 4 405B on a test cluster. After 2–4 weeks, you’ll have real data to inform your final choice.

If you’d like hands-on support running these experiments or designing your AI infrastructure, book a call with the PADISO team. We’ve shipped both models in production and can help you avoid costly mistakes.

---

Appendix: Benchmark Data Reference

Reasoning Benchmarks

Benchmark	Opus 4.7	Llama 4 405B	Source
MATH (accuracy)	94%	92%	Papers with Code SOTA
GSM8K (accuracy)	96%	94%	Papers with Code SOTA
AIME (accuracy)	52%	48%	Model documentation

Knowledge Benchmarks

Benchmark	Opus 4.7	Llama 4 405B	Source
MMLU (accuracy)	92%	90%	Papers with Code SOTA
TriviaQA (accuracy)	94%	92%	Papers with Code SOTA

Code Benchmarks

Benchmark	Opus 4.7	Llama 4 405B	Source
HumanEval (pass rate)	88%	89%	Papers with Code SOTA
MBPP (pass rate)	85%	86%	Papers with Code SOTA

These benchmarks are approximate and subject to change as models are updated. Always verify with the latest Papers with Code SOTA leaderboard and official model documentation from Anthropic and Meta.