GPT-4o wins on writing quality. Llama 4 Maverick wins on price ($0.6 vs $2.5/1M input) and context window (256K vs 128K). For most workflows, GPT-4o is the stronger default — best all-around pick for image-heavy and multimodal workflows.
The safest GPT-4o vs Llama 4 Maverick default, the cheaper option worth trying first, and the specialist pick — before you read the detail below.
GPT-4o is the strongest answer here for GPT-4o vs Llama 4 Maverick — pick it when quality of output matters more than the $2.50/1M/1M input you pay for it.
Llama 4 Maverick handles the same job for about 82% less per token. Start here and only move up if the output is not good enough.
GPT-4o is the fastest of these for GPT-4o vs Llama 4 Maverick — worth it when latency is what the reader notices, not the last few points of reasoning depth.
GPT-4o leads on coding with a score of 58 vs 58 for Llama 4 Maverick.
Llama 4 Maverick has the larger context window: 256K vs 128K for GPT-4o.
Llama 4 Maverick is cheaper at $0.6/1M input tokens vs $2.5/1M for GPT-4o.
GPT-4o is the safer default: it is built for multimodal tasks and image-adjacent workflows, which covers most of what people bring to this comparison.
Llama 4 Maverick earns its place when your work is mostly flexible self-hosted deployments and mixed general workloads, even though it loses the overall count here.
Llama 4 Maverick is the more cost-efficient option at $0.6/1M input — GPT-4o costs 4x more per input token, so the gap is worth taking seriously wherever token volume rather than peak quality drives the bill.
Switch the scoring lens to see whether the GPT-4o vs Llama 4 Maverick answer changes when cost, speed, or long-document depth leads the decision.
Meta / Budget / Sep 3, 2026
Best flexible option for teams that need open-weight portability.
Ranks models by the broadest mix of coding, writing, research, and long-context usefulness.
You want the strongest hosted answer quality — closed frontier models win on benchmarks.
Where the GPT-4o vs Llama 4 Maverick recommendation shifts once you weigh price or latency differently.
Best all-around pick for image-heavy and multimodal workflows.
Best flexible option for teams that need open-weight portability.
List prices and published scores — the numbers this page's pick is built from.
| Model | Input | Output | Est. month | Context | Speed | Coding | Writing | Research |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-4oOpenAI | $2.50/1M | $10.00/1M | $45 | 128k tokens | Fast | 58 | 76 | 65 |
| Llama 4 MaverickMeta | $0.60/1M | $1.60/1M | $9.20 | 256k tokens | Fast | 58 | 66 | 64 |
Scores out of 100 — how we evaluate models. “Est. month” is 10M in / 2M out at list price: a ceiling, no discounts.
Why each one is on the shortlist for GPT-4o vs Llama 4 Maverick, what it is genuinely good at, and where we would steer you away from it.
The default answer for GPT-4o vs Llama 4 Maverick — 80/100 on the images axis, and the model we would start with unless the price below rules it out.
Versatile multimodal model that handles image-related workflows and mixed-media prompts well.
You need the latest reasoning or coding performance — GPT-5.4 replaces it for serious work.
Still a reliable multimodal pick, especially for teams already in the OpenAI ecosystem.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the GPT-4o page.
Where most budgets should land for GPT-4o vs Llama 4 Maverick — about 82% less per token than GPT-4o, and still 55/100 on the images axis.
Flexible open-weight model for teams that want control, portability, and solid general-purpose performance.
You want the strongest hosted answer quality — closed frontier models win on benchmarks.
Best when infrastructure control and open-weight flexibility matter more than absolute peak quality.
Full pricing, benchmark table and release notes on the Llama 4 Maverick page.
UseRightAI recommendations are based on practical decision factors people actually feel in day-to-day use.
Newsletter
We email when the GPT-4o vs Llama 4 Maverick pick changes, when one of these models moves on price, or when something new displaces the current leader.
No spam. Useful updates only. Affiliate disclosures always clearly labeled.
GPT-4o wins on more of the categories we score — images, writing, multimodal — so it is the better default of the two. Llama 4 Maverick is the better pick when your work is mostly flexible self-hosted deployments and mixed general workloads. Neither is universally "better": GPT-4o is aimed at multimodal tasks and image-adjacent workflows, Llama 4 Maverick at flexible self-hosted deployments and mixed general workloads.
Llama 4 Maverick is cheaper at $0.6/1M input and $1.6/1M output. GPT-4o costs $2.5/1M input and $10/1M output.
Llama 4 Maverick has the larger context window at 256K tokens vs GPT-4o's 128K. For large document analysis, Llama 4 Maverick is the stronger pick.
GPT-4o and Llama 4 Maverick are similarly matched on coding. GPT-6 Astra is the overall coding leader in this directory at 100/100.
Both GPT-4o and Llama 4 Maverick have similar speed profiles — rated fast. Neither will be the bottleneck if latency is your deciding factor.
Outclassed by newer models on pure coding and reasoning. Gemini 3.1 Pro now handles multimodal at a lower price. Avoid it if you need the latest reasoning or coding performance — GPT-5.4 replaces it for serious work. That is the main case for looking at Llama 4 Maverick instead.
Quality depends heavily on deployment setup and hardware. No significant lead over hosted models in any single benchmark category. Avoid it if you want the strongest hosted answer quality — closed frontier models win on benchmarks. Against GPT-4o specifically, the two are close enough on capability that price and speed decide it.
Take a moderate workload of 10M input and 2M output tokens a month. GPT-4o runs $45.00 (at $2.5/1M in and $10/1M out); Llama 4 Maverick runs $9.20 (at $0.6/1M in and $1.6/1M out). That is a $35.80/month difference — Llama 4 Maverick is the cheaper of the two at this volume, and the gap scales linearly as you send more. Output tokens dominate the bill on both, so prompt length matters far less than response length.
Yes, and for most teams that beats picking one. A common split is GPT-4o for multimodal tasks and image-adjacent workflows, with Llama 4 Maverick handling flexible self-hosted deployments and mixed general workloads. Routing high-volume, low-stakes calls to Llama 4 Maverick at $0.6/1M and reserving GPT-4o for the hard cases is usually the cheapest arrangement that does not cost you quality.