Side-by-side technical and economic comparison between OpenAI's OpenAI o3 and Meta / Together's Llama 4 Vivas.
| Metric | OpenAI o3 | Llama 4 Vivas | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Provider Organization | OpenAI | Meta / Together | — |
| Standard Input / 1M | $2.00 | $0.25 | Llama 4 Vivas (88% lower) |
| Cached Input / 1M | $0.50 | $0.06 | Llama 4 Vivas lower |
| Output / 1M | $8.00 | $0.85 | Llama 4 Vivas lower |
| Context Window | 200k | 1M | Llama 4 Vivas (1M) |
| Max Generation Tokens | 100k | 128k | Llama 4 Vivas |
| Tokenizer Family | OpenAI o200k_base (200k vocabulary) | Meta Llama 3 Tokenizer (128k vocabulary) | — |
Opt for OpenAI o3 when your engineering requirements prioritize OpenAI's ecosystem, specific tokenizer efficiencies (Exact BPE (o200k_base)), or when your expected prompt-to-completion ratios favor its $2/M input rate.
Opt for Llama 4 Vivas when looking for Meta / Together's tooling integration, specific context window depth (1M tokens), or when output generation volume favors its $0.85/M rate.