LLMBenchmark.ai

Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Llama 4 Maverick vs o1

Updated October 21, 2026. 60 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Replace Llama 4 Maverick Replace o1
Llama 4 MaverickMeta Llama
Coding
18.1
Overall
9.3
Output $/M
$0.6525
1
o1OpenAI
Coding
61.7
Overall
15.2
Output $/M
$60.00
59
vs boards won of 60 shared

Decision reading

Pick o1 for coding: it scores 61.7 on the Vibe Coding Index against 18.1 for Llama 4 Maverick, though on 1 benchmark against 2.

Pick Llama 4 Maverick when output tokens cost 92.0x less, or when the context window is larger, 524K against 200K tokens.

Model ALlama 4 MaverickMeta Llama18.1/1002 independent benchmarks$1.491 per solved taskModel Bo1OpenAI61.7/1001 independent benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
60
Llama 4 Maverick only
24
o1 only
8
Like-for-like categories
7 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Llama 4 Maverick 18.1 from 2 benchmarks, o1 61.7 from 1 benchmark.
Widest category
Agentic work, 44.7 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
MedQA (Vals AI): Llama 4 Maverick 43.3% against o1 96.5%, 53.2 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Llama 4 Maverick $0.6525 against o1 $60.00 per million output tokens, 92.0x apart.
Context window
Llama 4 Maverick takes 524K tokens, o1 200K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryLlama 4 MaverickBarso1Ties
Coding08
Intelligence02
Agentic work01
Reasoning09
Math14
Knowledge010
General025
All shared boards159
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index08
Coding benchmarks for Llama 4 Maverick and o1
BenchmarkLlama 4 Mavericko1Leader
Aider polyglot15.6%61.7%o1
SWE-bench Verified21.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Maverick measured
AA Coding Index16.339.7o1
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)47.3%50.3%o1
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)39.7%67.9%o1
SciCode31.7%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Maverick measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)6.8%12.9%o1
WeirdML24.5%46.1%o1
ALE-Bench173.0Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Maverick measured
LMArena Text: coding13011367o1
LMArena Text: software and IT12991366o1
Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Intelligence benchmarks for Llama 4 Maverick and o1
BenchmarkLlama 4 Mavericko1Leader
AA Intelligence Index9.315.2o1
Epoch Capabilities Index132.2141.7o1
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Llama 4 Maverick and o1
BenchmarkLlama 4 Mavericko1Leader
AA Agentic Index0.6Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Maverick measured
τ²-Bench Telecom17.8%62.6%o1
METR time horizonsNot measured51.1%Only o1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index09
Reasoning benchmarks for Llama 4 Maverick and o1
BenchmarkLlama 4 Mavericko1Leader
GPQA Diamond69.4%73.2%o1
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)71.7%77.4%o1
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)67.1%74.7%o1
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)4.9%7.0%o1
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured76.8%Only o1 measured
ARC-AGI4.4%30.7%o1
ARC-AGI-20.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Maverick measured
SimpleBench27.7%40.1%o1
Chess puzzlesNot measured10.0%Only o1 measured
VPCTNot measured37.0%Only o1 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts12811371o1
LMArena Text: expert12591361o1
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English12951372o1
LMArena Vision: diagrams1134Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Maverick measured
LMArena Vision: homework1164Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Maverick measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index14
Math benchmarks for Llama 4 Maverick and o1
BenchmarkLlama 4 Mavericko1Leader
AIME25.2%71.5%o1
MATH 500 (Vals AI)85.2%90.4%o1
MGSM (Vals AI)92.4%89.3%Llama 4 Maverick
AA Math Index19.3Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Maverick measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)19.3%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Maverick measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured73.3%Only o1 measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured14.7%Only o1 measured
MATH level 5Not measured94.7%Only o1 measured
LMArena Text: math12991388o1
LMArena Text: mathematical work12951390o1
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index010
Knowledge benchmarks for Llama 4 Maverick and o1
BenchmarkLlama 4 Mavericko1Leader
MMLU Pro79.4%83.5%o1
LegalBench (Vals AI)77.8%80.4%o1
CorpFin (Vals AI)49.7%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Maverick measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)66.6%74.3%o1
MortgageTax (Vals AI)58.5%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Maverick measured
MedQA (Vals AI)43.3%96.5%o1
MedCode (Vals AI)36.5%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Maverick measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)80.9%84.1%o1
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured41.1%Only o1 measured
GeoBench52.0%80.0%o1
LMArena Text: science12881369o1
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare12751355o1
LMArena Text: legal and government12861368o1
LMArena Text: business and finance12601328o1
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Llama 4 Maverick and o1
BenchmarkLlama 4 Mavericko1Leader
Design Arena: websites871Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Maverick measured
Design Arena: UI components899Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Maverick measured
Design Arena: game dev838Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Maverick measured
Design Arena: data viz882Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Maverick measured
Design Arena: 3D901Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Maverick measured
Design Arena: all code categories880Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Maverick measured
Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index025
General benchmarks for Llama 4 Maverick and o1
BenchmarkLlama 4 Mavericko1Leader
SAGE (Vals AI)35.7%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Maverick measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)54.2%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Maverick measured
IFBench43.0%70.3%o1
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)50.0%65.0%o1
DTBench61.9%74.7%o1
LMCA15.9%22.3%o1
Fiction.LiveBench46.2%83.3%o1
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)62.0%70.2%o1
LMArena Text12871366o1
LMArena Text: instruction following12671367o1
LMArena Text: creative writing12661347o1
LMArena Vision11421168o1
LMArena Text: English13031372o1
LMArena Text: non-English12691358o1
LMArena Text: Chinese12771394o1
LMArena Text: German12911337o1
LMArena Text: Japanese12061346o1
LMArena Text: Korean12031396o1
LMArena Text: French12591344o1
LMArena Text: Spanish12931345o1
LMArena Text: Russian12861356o1
LMArena Text: Polish1275Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Maverick measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn12891355o1
LMArena Text: longer queries12801378o1
LMArena Text: writing and language12771360o1
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12501358o1
LMArena Vision: English11501162o1
LMArena Vision: Chinese11411235o1
LMArena Vision: reading text1143Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Maverick measured
LMArena Vision: humor1100Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Maverick measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing1099Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Maverick measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Llama 4 Maverick and o1
BenchmarkLlama 4 Mavericko1Leader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Llama 4 Maverick$0.0005Fits in one request
o1$0.045Fits in one request

Llama 4 Maverick costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Llama 4 Maverick$0.011Fits in one request
o1$0.930Fits in one request

Llama 4 Maverick costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Llama 4 Maverick$0.044Fits in one request
o1$3.60Exceeds the context window

Llama 4 Maverick costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Llama 4 Maverick and o1
SpecificationMeta Llama 4 MaverickOpenAI o1
MakerMeta LlamaOpenAI
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedApril 5, 2025December 17, 2024
Context window524K200K
Input $/Mtok$0.1875$15.00
Output $/Mtok$0.6525$60.00
Coding index18.161.7
Independent measurements behind it21
Cost per solved task$1.491Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Llama 4 Maverick better than o1 for coding?

Pick o1 for coding: it scores 61.7 on the Vibe Coding Index against 18.1 for Llama 4 Maverick, though on 1 benchmark against 2. Pick Llama 4 Maverick when output tokens cost 92.0x less, or when the context window is larger, 524K against 200K tokens.

Which is cheaper, Llama 4 Maverick or o1?

Llama 4 Maverick costs $0.1875 per million input tokens and $0.6525 per million output tokens; o1 costs $15.00 and $60.00. Cost per solved task is known for Llama 4 Maverick only.

Which has the bigger context window, Llama 4 Maverick or o1?

Llama 4 Maverick, with 524K tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks is the Llama 4 Maverick vs o1 comparison based on?

60 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Llama 4 Maverick's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and o1's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next