| Signal | GPT-5 Chat | Delta | Llama 4 Maverick |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 67 | -- | |
Benchmarks | 70 | +0 | |
Pricing | 90 | -9 | |
Context window size | 81 | -14 | |
Recency | 89 | +23 | |
Output Capacity | 70 | -- | |
| Overall Result | 2 wins | of 6 | 2 wins |
Score History
70.5
current score
GPT-5 Chat
right now
70.2
current score
OpenAI
Meta
Llama 4 Maverick saves you $580.00/month
That's $6960.00/year compared to GPT-5 Chat at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | GPT-5 Chat | Llama 4 Maverick | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 71 | 70 | GPT-5 Chat |
| Rank | #48 | #52 | GPT-5 Chat |
| Quality Rank | #48 | #52 | GPT-5 Chat |
| Adoption Rank | #48 | #52 | GPT-5 Chat |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 128K | 1049K | Llama 4 Maverick |
| Pricing | $1.25/$10.00/M | $0.15/$0.60/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 67 | 67 | GPT-5 Chat |
| Benchmarks | 70 | 70 | GPT-5 Chat |
| Pricing | 90 | 99 | Llama 4 Maverick |
| Context window size | 81 | 96 | Llama 4 Maverick |
| Recency | 89 | 67 | GPT-5 Chat |
| Output Capacity | 70 | 70 | GPT-5 Chat |
Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Here's what the scores mean for these two models:
Scores 71/100 (rank #48), placing it in the top 84% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 70/100 (rank #52), placing it in the top 82% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 0-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.
Llama 4 Maverick offers 93% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $11.25/month with Llama 4 Maverick vs $168.75/month with GPT-5 Chat - a $157.50 monthly difference.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Higher benchmark score (0/100) indicates stronger performance on coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Faster response time (speed score 0/100) is critical for user-facing chat. Llama 4 Maverick also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (1049K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($0.60/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (71/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
GPT-5 Chat and Llama 4 Maverick are extremely close in overall performance (only 0.29999999999999716 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.
Best for Quality
GPT-5 Chat
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Llama 4 Maverick
93% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
GPT-5 Chat
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
GPT-5 Chat
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
GPT-5 Chat
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by OpenAI
| Capability | GPT-5 Chat | Llama 4 Maverick |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Callingdiffers | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Searchdiffers | ||
| Image Output |
OpenAI
Meta
Llama 4 Maverick saves you $13.26/month
That's 93% cheaper than GPT-5 Chat at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | GPT-5 Chat | Llama 4 Maverick |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 128K | 1.0M |
| Max Output Tokens | 16,384 | 16,384 |
| Open Source | No | Yes |
| Created | Aug 7, 2025 | Apr 5, 2025 |
GPT-5 Chat scores 71/100 (rank #48) compared to Llama 4 Maverick's 70/100 (rank #52), giving it a 0-point advantage. GPT-5 Chat is the stronger overall choice, though Llama 4 Maverick may excel in specific areas like cost efficiency.
GPT-5 Chat is ranked #48 and Llama 4 Maverick is ranked #52 out of 290+ AI models. Rankings use a composite score combining benchmark performance (90%) from MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations, with capabilities and context window as tiebreakers (10%). Scores update hourly.
Llama 4 Maverick is cheaper at $0.60/M output tokens vs GPT-5 Chat's $10.00/M output tokens - 16.7x more expensive. Input token pricing: GPT-5 Chat at $1.25/M vs Llama 4 Maverick at $0.15/M.
Llama 4 Maverick has a larger context window of 1,048,576 tokens compared to GPT-5 Chat's 128,000 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.