LogoLMSpeed
  • Home
  • Free
  • Models
  • Providers
  • Docs
LogoLMSpeed
  1. Home
  3. Compare
  5. Models
  7. Claude Opus 4.6 vs Llama 3.3
LogoLMSpeed

The best API speed test tool

GitHubGitHubTwitterX (Twitter)Email
Product
  • Features
  • Pricing
  • FAQ
Leaderboard
  • Overview
  • Speed Ranking
  • Latency Ranking
  • Health Ranking
  • Model Pricing
  • Model Speed
  • Reasoning
  • Coding
Models
  • All Models
  • GPT
  • Claude
  • Gemini
  • DeepSeek
  • Llama
  • Qwen
Free Models
  • All Free Models
  • Free GPT
  • Free Claude
  • Free Gemini
  • Free DeepSeek
  • Free Llama
  • Free Qwen
Resources
  • Speed Test
  • Provider Directory
  • Documentation
Legal
  • Cookie Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service
© 2026 LMSpeed All Rights Reserved.Made by Nexmoe with ❤️
Back to models

Data points: 40

On this page

Key TakeawaysComparison sheetBenchmark score comparisonAPI audit comparisonProvider examplesWhen to choose each modelFAQRelated compare reports

Key Takeaways

The readout for Claude Opus 4.6 and Llama 3.3, before the detailed comparison sheet.

Decision read

Claude Opus 4.6

Claude Opus 4.6 currently has the stronger profile, with verified wins split 4 to 2.

Evidence depth

40 data points

Includes 0 benchmark rows, 0 audit samples, and 5 provider examples.

Selection signal

Start with Claude Opus 4.6

The charts below split 5 high-signal samples across speed, scores, and audit health.

Change comparison

Switch either side of this report to compare another model with the same LMSpeed data pipeline.

Select a different model to open a new comparison URL.

Model compare

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Llama 3.3

claude-opus-4-6-vs-llama-3-3

Model A

Claude

Claude Opus 4.6

Model B

MetaAI

Llama 3.3

Overall leaderLeadingContender
Verified metric wins4 wins2 wins
Where it leadsCheapest input price, Free providers, Provider coverage, Recent testsAverage speed, First-token latency
Model metadataClaude Opus 4.6 exposes 1M tokens; notable signals: Text input, Image input, File input, Text output.No OpenRouter metadata is available yet for this model.
DeveloperAnthropicMeta
Context window1M tokensNo data
Max output128K tokensNo data
ReleasedApr 2026No data
Modalities

Input

TextImageFile

Output

Text
No data
Features
Text inputImage inputFile inputText outputTool callingStructured outputsJSON modeReasoning
None listed
ParametersNo dataNo data
TokenizerClaudeNo data
Knowledge cutoffNo dataNo data
OpenRouter IDanthropic/claude-opus-4.6-fastNo data
ReferencesNo dataNo data

Benchmark score comparison

Third-party benchmark profile synced into LMSpeed; only metrics available for both models are shown.

Category performance

Compare benchmark category scores on a 0-100 scale. Select a category to inspect the gap.

Model A coverage
7 / 8
Model B coverage
0 / 8
Shared
0 shared categories
Claude Opus 4.6Llama 3.3
Category performanceCompare benchmark category scores on a 0-100 scale. Select a category to inspect the gap.AgentsCodingReasoningKnowledgeMathMultilingualMultimodalInstruction following

Avg. score

Claude Opus 4.6

65.8

Avg. score

Llama 3.3

-

Selected category

Agents

Claude Opus 4.6

Professional benchmark details

Metric-level scores with benchmark source, rank depth, confidence, error, and evaluation date where available.

No shared professional benchmark scores are available yet.

API audit comparison

Latest completed audits from shared providers, with four safety and integrity score groups plus report links.

Provider
ClaudeClaude Opus 4.6
MetaAILlama 3.3
No completed audits are available from shared providers yet.

Provider examples

Speed aggregates and input/output pricing share each provider row for real API selection and migration cost checks.

Provider
ClaudeClaude Opus 4.6
MetaAILlama 3.3
CHB API0 tests
Claude

Claude Opus 4.6

claude-opus-4-6

speed / latency

N/A / N/A

input / output

$0.068/M / $0.342/M

MetaAI

Llama 3.3

llama-3.3-70b

speed / latency

N/A / N/A

input / output

$1.03/M / $1.03/M

HotaruAPI0 tests
Claude

Claude Opus 4.6

speed / latency

N/A / N/A

input / output

No data

MetaAI

Llama 3.3

speed / latency

N/A / N/A

input / output

No data

KFCV500 tests
Claude

Claude Opus 4.6

speed / latency

N/A / N/A

input / output

No data

MetaAI

Llama 3.3

speed / latency

N/A / N/A

input / output

No data

SMLC666 API0 tests
Claude

Claude Opus 4.6

speed / latency

N/A / N/A

input / output

No data

MetaAI

Llama 3.3

speed / latency

N/A / N/A

input / output

No data

Synapse0 tests
Claude

Claude Opus 4.6

speed / latency

N/A / N/A

input / output

No data

MetaAI

Llama 3.3

speed / latency

N/A / N/A

input / output

No data

When to choose each model

This report only uses LMSpeed data for Claude Opus 4.6 and Llama 3.3: pricing, speed aggregates, third-party benchmark scores, and shared provider samples.

Guidance
ClaudeClaude Opus 4.6
MetaAILlama 3.3
When to choose each model

Claude Opus 4.6

Claude Opus 4.6 is stronger when you prioritize Cheapest input price, Free providers, Provider coverage, Recent tests.

Llama 3.3

Llama 3.3 is stronger when you prioritize Average speed, First-token latency.

FAQ

TL;DR: Claude Opus 4.6 leads across 40 verifiable data points, including pricing, speed, latency, benchmarks, and provider examples.

Why is this comparison indexable?
It has 6 verifiable comparison points, and both models have pricing or benchmark data.
Are missing metrics invented?
No. Metrics without LMSpeed data are omitted from this report.

Related compare reports

Continue from Claude Opus 4.6 vs Llama 3.3 into nearby model comparisons with enough verified LMSpeed data.

ClaudeClaude Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.46 verified data pointsClaudeClaude Opus 4.6 vs GPT-56 verified data pointsClaudeClaude Opus 4.6 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro6 verified data pointsClaudeClaude Opus 4.6 vs GPT-5.26 verified data points

Data as of Jun 19, 2026, 08:02 AM·Rankings are based on community-submitted tests and periodic health probes. Advisory only, not official data.