The realm of Large Language Models (LLMs) is in constant flux. As of August 2025, staying abreast of the latest advancements is crucial for anyone working with AI. This blog post provides a comparative analysis of three prominent LLMs: Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-4o, and Llama 4, focusing on their performance in complex coding and data analysis tasks. Keep in mind that the AI landscape is rapidly evolving, and today’s insights might be superseded by tomorrow’s innovations.

Claude 3.5 Sonnet: The Coding Prodigy?

Developed by Anthropic, Claude 3.5 Sonnet has quickly garnered attention for its coding capabilities. One of its key features is a 200K token context window, allowing it to process and analyze large codebases effectively. According to Arsturn, Claude 3.5 Sonnet achieves a 64% success rate in coding evaluation tasks, significantly outperforming its predecessor, Claude 3 Opus, which scored 38%. This improvement showcases Anthropic’s dedication to enhancing coding proficiency.

Furthermore, Anthropic emphasizes Claude 3.5 Sonnet’s industry-leading software engineering skills. It attained a 49% score on SWE-bench Verified, surpassing other publicly available models, including GPT-4o. This benchmark specifically evaluates the model’s ability to solve real-world software engineering problems. Beyond coding, Claude 3.5 Sonnet also demonstrates strong performance in graduate-level reasoning (GPQA) and undergraduate knowledge (MMLU), highlighting its versatility.

However, it’s important to note that while these benchmarks are promising, further evaluation is needed to assess its performance in real-world, long-context coding tasks. The ability to maintain coherence and accuracy over extended codebases is a critical factor in practical applications.

GPT-4o: A Versatile but Challenged Contender

OpenAI’s GPT-4o initially showed promise, delivering GPT-4 Turbo-level performance in coding scenarios, according to OpenAI. However, more recent assessments, such as those by Vellum AI, indicate limitations in complex coding tasks. Specifically, its performance on benchmarks like SWE-bench and Aider Polyglot lags behind newer models like GPT-5 and Claude Opus 4.1, as noted by Vellum AI. This suggests that while GPT-4o remains a capable general-purpose LLM, its coding prowess may have been surpassed by more specialized models.

Despite these limitations, GPT-4o retains strengths in other areas. It continues to perform well in reasoning (MMLU) and showcases impressive multilingual capabilities. Its versatility makes it a suitable choice for a wide range of applications, but for organizations prioritizing cutting-edge coding performance, other options might be more compelling.

Llama 4: The Open-Source Disruptor

Meta’s Llama 4 family, including models like Scout and Maverick, offers a unique proposition: open-source accessibility. This allows developers to fine-tune and customize the models to suit their specific needs, fostering innovation and collaboration within the AI community. GoCodeo reports that Llama 4 Maverick surpasses 1400 on the LMarena benchmark, outperforming both GPT-4o and Gemini 2.0 Flash. This achievement underscores the potential of open-source LLMs to compete with proprietary models.

Analytics Vidhya highlights Maverick’s Mixture of Experts architecture and its strong performance in reasoning, coding, and multilingual tasks. This architecture allows the model to leverage different specialized sub-networks for different types of inputs, potentially improving its overall performance.

However, The Decoder reveals a significant weakness: Llama 4’s struggles with long-context tasks. In a realistic long-context test, Maverick achieved only 28.1% accuracy, while Scout scored a mere 15.6%. This limitation could be a major drawback for applications requiring the processing of lengthy codebases or documents. While Llama 4 shows promise in standard benchmarks, its long-context performance needs substantial improvement to be competitive in certain real-world scenarios. According to Llama 4 performance benchmarks, the Llama 4 family of models still have a ways to go before being on par with proprietary models.

In-Depth Comparative Analysis

To provide a clearer picture of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each model, let’s delve into a more detailed comparison across key performance areas:

• Coding Proficiency: As of August 2025, Claude 3.5 Sonnet appears to hold a distinct advantage in coding benchmarks. Its 64% success rate in coding evaluations, as reported by Arsturn, places it ahead of both GPT-4o and Llama 4. Llama 4 Maverick demonstrates competitive performance in standard benchmarks, but its long-context limitations are a concern. GPT-4o, while still capable, seems to lag behind in more complex coding scenarios compared to these newer alternatives.

• Data Analysis: While all three models possess data analysis capabilities, the available sources offer limited specific benchmark comparisons for complex data analysis tasks. Further research and dedicated benchmarks are needed to make a definitive assessment of their relative performance in this area. Factors to consider would include the ability to handle large datasets, perform statistical analysis, and generate insightful visualizations.

• Long-Context Performance: This is a critical area where the models diverge significantly. Llama 4’s weakness in long-context tasks is a notable limitation, as highlighted by The Decoder. Claude 3.5 Sonnet, with its 200K token context window, has the potential to excel in this area, but more real-world evaluations are needed to confirm its capabilities. GPT-4o’s long-context performance also warrants further investigation.

• Open-Source vs. Proprietary: Llama 4’s open-source nature provides a level of flexibility and customization that is not available with Claude 3.5 Sonnet or GPT-4o. This can be a significant advantage for organizations that want to fine-tune the model to their specific needs or contribute to the ongoing development of the AI community. However, open-source models may also require more technical expertise to deploy and maintain.

• Cost and Availability: The cost of using these models can vary depending on the provider and the specific usage patterns. Open-source models like Llama 4 eliminate licensing fees, but they may require more investment in infrastructure and development resources. Availability can also be a factor, as some models may be restricted to certain regions or platforms.

Real-World Use Cases and Examples

To illustrate the practical implications of these performance differences, let’s consider a few real-world use cases:

• Software Development: For tasks such as code generation, bug fixing, and code completion, Claude 3.5 Sonnet’s superior coding proficiency could translate into significant productivity gains. Its ability to handle complex codebases makes it well-suited for large-scale software development projects.

• Data Science: In data science applications, the choice of model depends on the specific task. For tasks involving the analysis of large text datasets, such as sentiment analysis or topic extraction, long-context performance is crucial. For tasks involving numerical analysis or statistical modeling, the model’s data analysis capabilities are more important.

• Customer Service: LLMs are increasingly being used to power chatbots and virtual assistants. In this context, the model’s ability to understand and respond to complex customer inquiries is paramount. GPT-4o’s multilingual capabilities could be an advantage in serving a global customer base.

Conclusion: Choosing the Right Model for Your Needs

Selecting the optimal LLM hinges on the specific requirements of your application. Claude 3.5 Sonnet demonstrates considerable strength in coding tasks, making it an attractive choice for software development and related fields. Llama 4 offers open-source adaptability and solid performance in standard benchmarks, appealing to organizations seeking customization and community-driven innovation. GPT-4o, while still a capable model, may be less ideal for highly complex coding scenarios compared to its newer counterparts.

As the AI landscape continues to evolve at a rapid pace, it is essential to stay informed about the latest benchmarks, releases, and research findings. Regularly evaluating the performance of different models on your specific tasks will ensure that you are leveraging the most effective AI tools for your needs. The insights presented in this blog post provide a valuable starting point for your evaluation process, but continuous learning and experimentation are key to maximizing the benefits of AI.

Explore Mixflow AI today and experience a seamless digital transformation.