Skip to main content

Model comparison

Llama 4 Maverick vs o4-mini (high)

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

23.49/100
Margin
26.5pts
winning →
49.98/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Llama 4 Maverick #191 (Supported); o4-mini (high) #118 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Llama 4 Maverick and o4-mini (high) share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 17 results are unique to Llama 4 Maverick; 1 to o4-mini (high).

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
1
Llama 4 Maverick only
17
o4-mini (high) only
1
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick o4-mini (high) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Llama 4 Maverick only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 1M context window or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

o4-mini (high) is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 49.98 to 23.49. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

o4-mini (high)'s sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 20.2 against 0.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 0.690% to 24.828%.

o4-mini (high) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Llama 4 Maverick is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Llama 4 Maverick gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for o4-mini (high).

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Llama 4 Maverick and o4-mini (high)
CategoryLlama 4 MaverickΔo4-mini (high)
MathLlama 4 Maverick0.7Margin 19.5o4-mini (high)20.2

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Llama 4 MaverickB · o4-mini (high)
  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 0.690%B 24.828%
    Winner: o4-mini (high)Δ 24.1
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Llama 4 Maverick scored 0.690%; o4-mini (high) scored 24.828%. o4-mini (high) wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricLlama 4 Mavericko4-mini (high)Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensLlama 4 Maverick$0 input / $0 outputo4-mini (high)Not availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondLlama 4 Maverick121 tok/so4-mini (high)161 tok/so4-mini (high) has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenLlama 4 Maverick0.95 so4-mini (high)21.94 sLlama 4 Maverick reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensLlama 4 Maverick1Mo4-mini (high)200KLlama 4 Maverick lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkLlama 4 Mavericko4-mini (high)Result
AA Agentic IndexSource 1.3%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 17.8%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 0.0%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource -16Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkLlama 4 Mavericko4-mini (high)Result
AA Coding IndexSource 16.3%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 33.1%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkLlama 4 Mavericko4-mini (high)Result
AA-LCRSource 46.0%Not comparable
CritPtSource 0.0%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkLlama 4 Mavericko4-mini (high)Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 14.3%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 67.1%Not comparable
AA-HLESource 4.8%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -41.8%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 24.3%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 87.3%Not comparable
Matho4-mini (high) wins
BenchmarkLlama 4 Mavericko4-mini (high)Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 0.690%24.828%o4-mini (high) leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 6.250%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkLlama 4 Mavericko4-mini (high)Result
AA-MMMU-ProSource 62.1%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 903Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkLlama 4 Mavericko4-mini (high)Result
AA-IFBenchSource 43.0%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Llama 4 Maverick or o4-mini (high)?

o4-mini (high) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 49.98 to 23.49. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 0.690% and 24.828%.

Which is better for math, Llama 4 Maverick or o4-mini (high)?

o4-mini (high) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 20.2 versus 0.7. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

Llama 4 Maverick
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$2,610
Break-even
o4-mini (high)
API / mo$0
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Model the full break-even

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 20, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.