Llama 4 Maverick vs GPT-5: which should you choose in 2026?
Llama 4 Maverick (by Meta) and GPT-5 (by OpenAI) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
Llama 4 Maverick is about 9.8× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.35 vs $3.44 per 1M tokens).
Llama 4 Maverick has the larger context window (1,048,576 tokens vs 400,000 tokens).
Choose Llama 4 Maverick if…
- • lower blended API cost matters for your workload
- • you work with longer documents, transcripts, or codebases
Choose GPT-5 if…
- • you need a model with explicit reasoning support
The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.
Performance benchmarks
Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Maverick | GPT-5 |
|---|---|---|
A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework. Guardrail-aware score | — | — |
A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing. Accuracy | — | — |
A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state. Mean task reward | — | — |
A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests. Resolved Protocols differ or are incompletely disclosed; not counted as a controlled win | 21.0% SWE-bench | 65.0% SWE-bench |
Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol. Mean task success | — | — |
A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench. Weighted peer-assessment score | — | — |
The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Accuracy | — | — |
A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged. Accuracy | — | — |
30 problems from the 2025 American Invitational Mathematics Examination testing olympiad-level math reasoning Accuracy % | — | 50.23 matharena.ai |
Comprehensive comparison of AI models across intelligence, price, speed, and latency Intelligence Index | — | |
Challenging math contest benchmark featuring the most difficult olympiad-level problems Accuracy % | — | 50.23 matharena.ai |
Benchmark sources
- SWE-bench Verified Bash Only Leaderboard
- AIME 2025
- Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index
- MathArena Apex
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | Llama 4 Maverick | GPT-5 |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | Meta | OpenAI |
| API provider | Meta | OpenAI |
| Input context | 1,048,576 tokens | 400,000 tokens |
| Maximum output | 16,384 tokens | 128,000 tokens |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Apr 5, 2025 | Aug 7, 2025 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2024-08-31 | 2024-09-30 |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text, Image | Text, Image, File |
| Outputs | Text | Text |
| Provider endpoint accepts tool parameters | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Vision | Yes | Yes |
| Image Generation | No | No |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API pricing | ||
| Input (per 1M tokens) | $0.20 | $1.25 |
| Output (per 1M tokens) | $0.80 | $10.00 |
| Blended 3:1 input/output | $0.35 | $3.44 |
| API performance | ||
| p95 latency | Not measured | Not measured |
| Output throughput | Not measured | Not measured |
| Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table. | ||
Data sources
- Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)
Catalog data last updated Aug 7, 2025.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing Llama 4 Maverick from Meta with GPT-5 from OpenAI? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | Llama 4 Maverick | GPT-5 | AI Images | AI Video |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writingmate Pro Most popular | $20/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Writingmate Ultimate Power users | $60/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Llama 4 Maverick vs GPT-5 FAQ
Which is better, Llama 4 Maverick or GPT-5?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. Llama 4 Maverick is about 9.8× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.35 vs $3.44 per 1M tokens). Llama 4 Maverick has the larger context window (1,048,576 tokens vs 400,000 tokens).
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
Llama 4 Maverick is about 9.8× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.35 vs $3.44 per 1M tokens).
Which model supports more context?
Llama 4 Maverick has the larger context window (1,048,576 tokens vs 400,000 tokens).
Can I switch between Llama 4 Maverick and GPT-5?
Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.
Related comparisons
More Llama 4 Maverick comparisons
Muse Spark 1.2 Contributor
Meta
Muse Spark 1.2 contributor tier is a reasoning model from Meta designed for developers who want to start building at an even lower cost.
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp
DeepSeek
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp is a model by DeepSeek.
Ox Alpha
Stealth
Ox Alpha is a reasoning model designed for coding, sustained agentic work, and production workloads.
Qwen3.8 27B
Qwen
Qwen3.8 27B is an open-weight dense vision-language model from Qwen.
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3.7 Flash is a multimodal model from Google for fast agentic workflows, coding, and complex multi-step reasoning.
Seed 2.1 Turbo
ByteDance
Seed 2.1 Turbo is a multimodal model from ByteDance Seed for coding and long-horizon agent workflows.
More GPT-5 comparisons
Claude Opus 4.5
Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.5 is Anthropic’s frontier reasoning model optimized for complex software engineering, agentic workflows, and long-horizon computer use.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro is Google’s state-of-the-art AI model designed for advanced reasoning, coding, mathematics, and scientific tasks.
Claude Sonnet 4
Anthropic
Claude Sonnet 4 significantly enhances the capabilities of its predecessor, Sonnet 3.7, excelling in both coding and reasoning tasks with improved precision and controllability.
R1
DeepSeek
DeepSeek R1 is here: Performance on par with OpenAI o1, but open-sourced and with fully open reasoning tokens.
Muse Spark 1.2 Contributor
Meta
Muse Spark 1.2 contributor tier is a reasoning model from Meta designed for developers who want to start building at an even lower cost.
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3.7 Flash is a multimodal model from Google for fast agentic workflows, coding, and complex multi-step reasoning.