Skip to content

Meta vs OpenAI

Head-to-head comparison of Meta (Llama) and OpenAI (GPT) models. Compare 8 Meta models against 101 OpenAI models on scores, pricing, capabilities, and context windows. Data refreshed hourly.

Provider Overview

Meta vs OpenAI at a glance: model counts, average scores, price ranges, and open source status.

Meta (Llama)

Open Source
Models8
Avg Score51
Output Price$0.080 $0.652/1M
Free Models0
Open Source8/8

OpenAI (GPT)

Proprietary
Models101
Avg Score72
Output Price$0.090 $40000.00/1M
Free Models0
Open Source4/101

All Meta & OpenAI Models Ranked

Combined ranking of every Meta and OpenAI model sorted by composite score. Click any row for detailed analysis.

#ModelScore
1GPT-5.5 Pro932GPT-5.5 Pro (batch)933GPT-5.5934GPT-5.5 (batch)935GPT-5.4 Pro926GPT-5.4 Pro (batch)927GPT-5.4928GPT-5.4 (batch)929GPT-5.3-Codex9110GPT-5.2-Codex9111GPT-5.2 Chat9112GPT-5.2 Pro9113GPT-5.2 Pro (batch)9114GPT-5.29115GPT-5.2 (batch)9116GPT-5.6 Luna Pro8917GPT-5.6 Luna Pro (batch)8918GPT-5.6 Luna8919GPT-5.6 Luna (batch)8920GPT-5.6 Terra Pro8921GPT-5.6 Terra Pro (batch)8922GPT-5.6 Terra8923GPT-5.6 Terra (batch)8924GPT-5.6 Sol Pro8925GPT-5.6 Sol Pro (batch)8926GPT-5.6 Sol8927GPT-5.6 Sol (batch)8928GPT-5.1-Codex-Max8929GPT-5.18930GPT-5.1-Codex8931GPT-5 Pro8932GPT-5 Pro (batch)8933GPT-58934GPT-5 (batch)8935GPT-5.1 (batch)8836GPT-5.1-Codex-Mini8837o3 Pro8738o38739o3 (batch)8740GPT-6 Astra8241GPT-6 Astra (batch)8242GPT-6 Astra Pro8243GPT-6 Astra Pro (batch)8244o4 Mini8145o4 Mini (batch)8146GPT-5.4 Nano7947GPT-5.4 Nano (batch)7948GPT-5.4 Mini7949GPT-5.4 Mini (batch)7950GPT-5 Mini (batch)7751GPT-5 Nano (batch)7752o3 Mini7553o17454o3 Mini (batch)7455o1-pro7456GPT-5.4 Image 27457GPT Chat Latest7258o4 Mini High7259GPT-4o (batch)7260GPT-4o (2024-11-20)7161GPT-4o (2024-08-06)7162GPT-4o7163GPT-4o (2024-05-13)7164Llama 4 MaverickOSS7165GPT-4o-mini6966GPT-5 Image6867GPT-4.16868GPT-4.1 (batch)6869Llama 3.3 70B InstructOSS6770GPT-4 Turbo6771GPT-5 Image Mini6672Llama 3.1 70B InstructOSS6573GPT-46574o3 Mini High6475GPT-4o-mini (batch)6376GPT-5 Nano6277gpt-oss-120bOSS6278GPT-4 Turbo (batch)6279Llama 4 ScoutOSS6080GPT-4.1 Mini (batch)5981GPT-4.1 Nano (batch)5982gpt-oss-20bOSS5783gpt-oss-20b (batch)OSS5784GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)5785GPT-4.1 Mini5686GPT Audio5587GPT-5 Mini5488GPT Audio Mini5389gpt-oss-safeguard-20bOSS5190Llama 3.1 8B InstructOSS4591GPT-4.1 Nano4292Llama Guard 4 12BOSS4093GPT-6 Luna Pro4094GPT-6 Luna Pro (batch)4095GPT-6 Luna4096GPT-6 Luna (batch)4097GPT-6 Sol Pro4098GPT-6 Sol Pro (batch)4099GPT-6 Sol40100GPT-6 Sol (batch)40101GPT-3.5 Turbo (batch)36102DALL-E 335103Llama 3.2 3B InstructOSS34104GPT-3.5 Turbo 16k33105GPT-3.5 Turbo33106GPT-3.5 Turbo (older v0613)31107Llama 3.2 1B InstructOSS29108GPT-3.5 Turbo Instruct28109Sora10

Key Matchups: Llama vs GPT Head-to-Head

The most important head-to-head comparisons between Meta Llama and OpenAI GPT flagship models. Click any matchup for a detailed breakdown.

Pricing: Meta vs OpenAI

Meta Llama models are open source and available through multiple hosting providers at competitive prices. Here is how pricing compares to OpenAI.

MetricMetaOpenAI
Avg Input Price/1M$0.137$5.07
Avg Output Price/1M$0.308$420.24
Cheapest Input/1M$0.027$0.018
Cheapest Output/1M$0.080$0.090
Most Expensive Output/1M$0.652$40000.00
Free Models00
Meta Cost Advantage

On average, Meta Llama models cost 97% less on input and 100% less on output compared to OpenAI models. As open source models, Llama can also be self-hosted for even greater savings at scale.

Capability Coverage: Meta vs OpenAI

How many models from each provider support each capability.

CapabilityMetaOpenAI
Vision (Image Input)384
Function Calling594
Streaming899
JSON Mode699
Reasoning73
Web Search81
Image Output4

Meta vs OpenAI - Open Source Giant vs Proprietary Leader

Meta has established itself as the most influential force in open source AI with the Llama model family. From Llama 2 to the latest Llama 4 Maverick and Scout, Meta has consistently pushed the boundaries of what open-weight models can achieve. Llama models are available under permissive licenses, enabling self-hosting, fine-tuning, and custom deployments without vendor lock-in.

The key differentiator for Meta is open source flexibility and cost. Llama models can be deployed on any infrastructure-cloud, on-premise, or edge-giving teams complete control over their AI stack. Multiple hosting providers offer Llama models through their APIs at competitive prices, and self-hosting eliminates per-token costs entirely for teams with the infrastructure.

OpenAI maintains its position as the industry leader with the most comprehensive proprietary model lineup. With 101 models spanning GPT-4o, o-series reasoning models, and lightweight variants, OpenAI offers unmatched breadth. The ChatGPT ecosystem, enterprise features, extensive documentation, and first-party integrations provide a turnkey solution that many teams prefer.

For teams deciding between Meta and OpenAI, the choice often comes down to control vs. convenience. Meta wins on openness, customizability, and long-term cost efficiency for teams willing to manage their own infrastructure. OpenAI wins on ease of use, ecosystem maturity, and the broadest feature set available through a single API.

Explore More Comparisons

Dive deeper into AI model rankings, provider breakdowns, and head-to-head comparisons.

Frequently Asked Questions

Llama 3.1 405B approaches GPT-4 performance on many benchmarks. The smaller Llama 3.3 70B offers a strong quality-to-efficiency ratio. However, GPT-4o still leads on complex reasoning and multimodal tasks.

Meta’s Llama models are open-source — you can self-host them for complete data privacy, zero API costs, and full customization through fine-tuning. OpenAI offers better out-of-the-box performance and managed infrastructure.

Yes — Llama models are free to download and deploy. You need your own GPU hardware for self-hosting. Alternatively, cloud providers like Together AI and Fireworks offer hosted Llama at prices significantly lower than GPT-4o.

Meta vs OpenAI - Llama vs GPT Compared (2026) | LM Market Cap