Llama 4 (Meta) vs Claude Design (Anthropic)

Which one should you pick? Here's the full breakdown.

Llama 4 (Meta)

B
7.9/10

Meta's open-weights flagship family -- Scout (10M context), Maverick (multimodal 400B MoE), Behemoth in preview

Our Pick

Claude Design (Anthropic)

A
8.4/10

Anthropic's AI-native design tool -- launched 2026-04-17, built on Opus 4.7. Generates full design systems, website prototypes, slide decks, and one-pagers from natural language. Positioned as a Figma / Canva / Adobe starter-replacement (Figma stock dropped 5% on the launch news)

CategoryLlama 4 (Meta)Claude Design (Anthropic)
Ease of Use5.09.0
Output Quality8.58.5
Value9.08.0
Features9.08.0
Overall7.98.4

Pricing Comparison

FeatureLlama 4 (Meta)Claude Design (Anthropic)
Free TierYesYes
Starting Price$0$0

Benchmark Head-to-Head

Llama 4 Maverick (17B/400B MoE) benchmarks — Claude Design (Anthropic) has no published benchmarks

BenchmarkScore
MMLU-Pro80.5%
GPQA Diamond69.8%
HumanEval88%
MMMU (multimodal)73.4%

Which Should You Pick?

Pick Llama 4 (Meta) if...

  • Better value for money (9/10)
  • More features (9 vs 8)

Developers and teams who need a permissively-licensed open-weights model with strong tooling, long context (Scout), or multimodal (Maverick). Safe default choice given the ecosystem.

Visit Llama 4 (Meta)

Pick Claude Design (Anthropic) if...

  • Easier to use (9 vs 5)

Designers who use Claude Pro or Max and want an AI starting point for design systems, prototypes, slide decks, or one-pagers -- especially when the design decisions need to be internally consistent across many screens or slides. Also good for non-designer product managers and founders who need credible deliverables without hiring.

Visit Claude Design (Anthropic)

Our Verdict

Claude Design (Anthropic) edges out Llama 4 (Meta) with a 8.4 vs 7.9 overall score. Both are solid picks, but Claude Design (Anthropic) has the advantage in features.