Llama 4 (Meta) vs Microsoft Agent Framework 1.0

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

Microsoft Agent Framework 1.0

A
8.4/10

Microsoft's MIT-licensed open-source agent orchestration framework -- GA on 2026-04-03. Merges Semantic Kernel and AutoGen into a single SDK. Python and .NET. Native MCP and A2A protocol support. Connectors for Foundry, Azure OpenAI, OpenAI, Claude, Bedrock, Gemini, Ollama

CategoryLlama 4 (Meta)Microsoft Agent Framework 1.0
Ease of Use5.06.0
Output Quality8.58.5
Value9.010.0
Features9.09.0
Overall7.98.4

Pricing Comparison

FeatureLlama 4 (Meta)Microsoft Agent Framework 1.0
Free TierYesYes
Starting Price$0$0

Benchmark Head-to-Head

Llama 4 Maverick (17B/400B MoE) benchmarks — Microsoft Agent Framework 1.0 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...

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 Microsoft Agent Framework 1.0 if...

  • Easier to use (6 vs 5)
  • Better value for money (10/10)

Enterprise developers on .NET or mixed Python + .NET stacks who want an MIT-licensed agent orchestration framework with real enterprise credibility. Also good for Azure Foundry customers who want first-class native integration. Teams migrating from Semantic Kernel or AutoGen should plan the move to Microsoft Agent Framework 1.0 now rather than later.

Visit Microsoft Agent Framework 1.0

Our Verdict

Microsoft Agent Framework 1.0 edges out Llama 4 (Meta) with a 8.4 vs 7.9 overall score. Both are solid picks, but Microsoft Agent Framework 1.0 has the advantage in value.