Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Llama 4 Scout
Llama 4 Scout has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
GPT-4.1 mini vs Llama 4 Scout
Updated September 29, 2026. Rank cannot separate these two. Price, access, and your workload decide. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
Llama 4 Scout has the higher public score estimate, 29.39 versus 29.09, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 1
- GPT-4.1 mini only
- 4
- Llama 4 Scout only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: GPT-4.1 mini · Supported: Llama 4 ScoutHow the comparison works
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.
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
GPT-4.1 mini and Llama 4 Scout are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
GPT-4.1 mini is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limitedChat 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-ratesCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: rate-fallbackRepository 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
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
19.8GPT-4.1 mini13.9Llama 4 Scout
Directional only · BenchAlign v5.7
GPT-4.1 mini scores higher, but at least one score rests on Estimated evidence or a different benchmark set. Directional only, no winner.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
4 GPT-4.1 mini only
1 Shared
3 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
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
Normalized gap 4.5GPT-4.1 mini:4.483%Llama 4 Scout:0.000%
Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.7 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Coding
Directional only- GPT-4.1 mini
- 19.8
- Estimated · #123/143
- Llama 4 Scout
- 13.9
- Estimated · #139/143
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 1 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- GPT-4.1 mini
- 31.1
- Supported · #136/169
- Llama 4 Scout
- 26.5
- Estimated · #157/169
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 2 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Instruction following
Directional only- GPT-4.1 mini
- 42.8
- #94/124
- Llama 4 Scout
- 44.3
- #91/124
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Agentic
Not comparable- GPT-4.1 mini
- Not ranked
- Llama 4 Scout
- 9.9
- Estimated · #115/117
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 0 vs 0 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- GPT-4.1 mini
- 52.5
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Llama 4 Scout
- 41.2
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- GPT-4.1 mini
- 47.6
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Llama 4 Scout
- 39.1
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- GPT-4.1 mini
- Not ranked
- Llama 4 Scout
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- GPT-4.1 mini
- 28.4
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Llama 4 Scout
- 25.1
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | GPT-4.1 mini | Llama 4 Scout | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 19.8Estimated · #123/143 | 13.9Estimated · #139/143 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 1 vs 0 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 31.1Supported · #136/169 | 26.5Estimated · #157/169 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 2 vs 0 public rows | Directional only |
| Instruction following | 42.8#94/124 | 44.3#91/124 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | Not ranked | 9.9Estimated · #115/117 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 0 vs 0 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 52.5Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 41.2Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 47.6Unranked · 1 rankable row | 39.1Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 28.4Unranked · 1 rankable row | 25.1Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.7) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
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
- GPT-4.1 mini
- $0.0012
- 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
- GPT-4.1 mini
- $0.0248
- 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
- GPT-4.1 mini
- $0.104
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Llama 4 Scout
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
GPT-4.1 mini has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Llama 4 Scout has no comparable published API token rate.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationGPT-4.1 miniLlama 4 Scout
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
GPT-4.1 mini
1M
Llama 4 Scout
10M
API model ID
GPT-4.1 mini
Not sourced
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.
GPT-4.1 mini
Not published
Llama 4 Scout
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
GPT-4.1 mini
Not sourced
Llama 4 Scout
Not sourced
Documented outputs
GPT-4.1 mini
Not sourced
Llama 4 Scout
Not sourced
Provider availability
GPT-4.1 mini
Not sourced
Llama 4 Scout
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
GPT-4.1 mini
Non-Reasoning
Llama 4 Scout
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
GPT-4.1 mini
Proprietary
Llama 4 Scout
Open Weight
License
GPT-4.1 mini
Proprietary
Llama 4 Scout
Open Weight
Release date
GPT-4.1 mini
2025-04-14
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
- Llama 4 Scout has the higher public score estimate, 29.39 versus 29.09, 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.
Questions
Which is better, GPT-4.1 mini or Llama 4 Scout?
Llama 4 Scout has the higher public score estimate, 29.39 versus 29.09, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, GPT-4.1 mini or Llama 4 Scout?
GPT-4.1 mini scores higher for coding on the public lane, 19.8 to 13.9. GPT-4.1 mini and Llama 4 Scout are scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-4.1 mini or Llama 4 Scout?
GPT-4.1 mini is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, GPT-4.1 mini 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, GPT-4.1 mini or Llama 4 Scout?
Llama 4 Scout has the larger documented context window: 10M, compared with 1M.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
GPT-4.1 mini
API / mo$1,500
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—
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
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
GPT-4.1 mini23.6%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
Knowledge
Instruction following
IFEval
GPT-4.1 mini88.5%SourceLlama 4 Scout—Not directly comparable
Math
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Shared sourceGPT-4.1 mini4.483%Llama 4 Scout0.000%GPT-4.1 mini leads this result
5 public results · 1 shared
Watch GPT-4.1 mini vs Llama 4 Scout
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.
Last updated September 29, 2026