Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

See the free Radar Brief
BenchLM
Anthropic logo
Model A
Claude Haiku 4.5

Anthropic

57.72/100

Estimated · Public rank #96

90% interval 46.2–69.2

Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Llama 4 Scout

Updated September 3, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Meta logo
Model B
Llama 4 Scout

Meta

39.79/100

Supported · Public rank #212

90% interval 20.7–58.8

Decision reading

Claude Haiku 4.5 has the higher public score estimate, 57.72 versus 39.79, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

1 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Llama 4 Scout

    Llama 4 Scout has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude Haiku 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Llama 4 Scout has no comparable published API token rate.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
1
Claude Haiku 4.5 only
4
Llama 4 Scout only
0
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Math

Directional only
Claude Haiku 4.5
4.9
Llama 4 Scout
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 1 rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not measured
Llama 4 Scout
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 4.5
73.3
Llama 4 Scout
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not measured
Llama 4 Scout
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not measured
Llama 4 Scout
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not measured
Llama 4 Scout
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not measured
Llama 4 Scout
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not measured
Llama 4 Scout
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math

    Claude Haiku 4.5: 5.903%Llama 4 Scout: 0.000%Normalized gap 5.9Shared source

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Claude Haiku 4.5
$0.0035
Fits in one request
Llama 4 Scout
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Llama 4 Scout has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Haiku 4.5
$0.065
Fits in one request
Llama 4 Scout
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Llama 4 Scout has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Claude Haiku 4.5
$0.09
Does not fit in one request
Llama 4 Scout
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Claude Haiku 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Llama 4 Scout has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Claude Haiku 4.5

200K

Claude API pricing

Llama 4 Scout

10M

API model ID

Claude Haiku 4.5

claude-haiku-4-5-20251001

Claude API pricing

Llama 4 Scout

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Claude Haiku 4.5

$0.1 per 1M cached input tokens

Claude API pricing

Llama 4 Scout

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Claude Haiku 4.5

Not sourced

Llama 4 Scout

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Claude Haiku 4.5

Not sourced

Llama 4 Scout

Not sourced

Provider availability

Claude Haiku 4.5

Not sourced

Llama 4 Scout

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude Haiku 4.5

Non-Reasoning

Llama 4 Scout

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Haiku 4.5

Proprietary

Llama 4 Scout

Open Weight

License

Claude Haiku 4.5

Proprietary

Llama 4 Scout

Open Weight

Release date

Claude Haiku 4.5

2025-10-15

Llama 4 Scout

2026-02-28

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
Claude Haiku 4.5 has the higher public score estimate, 57.72 versus 39.79, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Llama 4 Scout has the larger documented window (10M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

Claude Haiku 4.5
API / mo$4,500
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Llama 4 Scout
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$2,278
Break-even—
Model the full break-even

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence5 rows

Agentic

  • JobBench

    Claude Haiku 4.516.0%
    Source
    Llama 4 Scout—

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude Haiku 4.573.3%
    Source
    Llama 4 Scout—

    Not directly comparable

  • VulcanBench v3

    Claude Haiku 4.576.2%
    Source
    Llama 4 Scout—

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Shared source
    Claude Haiku 4.55.903%
    Llama 4 Scout0.000%

    Claude Haiku 4.5 leads this result

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Claude Haiku 4.52.083%
    Source
    Llama 4 Scout—

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Llama 4 Scout?

Claude Haiku 4.5 has the higher public score estimate, 57.72 versus 39.79, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Llama 4 Scout?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Llama 4 Scout?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.

Which costs less, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Llama 4 Scout?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Llama 4 Scout?

Llama 4 Scout has the larger documented context window: 10M, compared with 200K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 3, 2026

Watch Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Llama 4 Scout

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.