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
Meta logo
Model A
Llama 4 Maverick

Meta

22.85/100

Supported · Public rank #226

90% interval 15.430.3

Llama 4 Maverick 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 20.758.8

Decision reading

Llama 4 Scout has the higher public score estimate, 39.79 versus 22.85, 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

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

    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
Llama 4 Maverick only
0
Llama 4 Scout only
0
Like-for-like categories
1 / 8

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

Like-for-like
Llama 4 Maverick
0.7
Llama 4 Scout
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 1 rows
Reading
No winner stated

Agentic

Not comparable
Llama 4 Maverick
Not measured
Llama 4 Scout
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Llama 4 Maverick
Not measured
Llama 4 Scout
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Llama 4 Maverick
Not measured
Llama 4 Scout
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Llama 4 Maverick
Not measured
Llama 4 Scout
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Llama 4 Maverick
Not measured
Llama 4 Scout
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Llama 4 Maverick
Not measured
Llama 4 Scout
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Llama 4 Maverick
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

    Llama 4 Maverick: 0.690%Llama 4 Scout: 0.000%Normalized gap 0.7Shared 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

Llama 4 Maverick
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Llama 4 Scout
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Llama 4 Maverick has no comparable published API token rate. Llama 4 Scout has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Llama 4 Maverick
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Llama 4 Scout
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Llama 4 Maverick has no comparable published API token rate. Llama 4 Scout has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Llama 4 Maverick
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable
Llama 4 Scout
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Llama 4 Maverick has no comparable published API token rate. 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.

Llama 4 Maverick

1M

Llama 4 Scout

10M

API model ID

Llama 4 Maverick

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.

Llama 4 Maverick

No comparable hosted API rate

Llama 4 Scout

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Llama 4 Maverick

Not sourced

Llama 4 Scout

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Llama 4 Maverick

Not sourced

Llama 4 Scout

Not sourced

Provider availability

Llama 4 Maverick

Not sourced

Llama 4 Scout

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Llama 4 Maverick

Non-Reasoning

Llama 4 Scout

Non-Reasoning

Weight access

Llama 4 Maverick

Open Weight

Llama 4 Scout

Open Weight

License

Llama 4 Maverick

Open Weight

Llama 4 Scout

Open Weight

Release date

Llama 4 Maverick

2026-02-28

Llama 4 Scout

2026-02-28

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
Both entries list Meta as the provider. Confirm endpoint, model ID, limits, and feature support before switching.
Quality signal
Llama 4 Scout has the higher public score estimate, 39.79 versus 22.85, 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.

Llama 4 Maverick
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$2,610
Break-even
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 evidence1 rows

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Shared source
    Llama 4 Maverick0.690%
    Llama 4 Scout0.000%

    Llama 4 Maverick leads this result

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Llama 4 Maverick or Llama 4 Scout?

Llama 4 Scout has the higher public score estimate, 39.79 versus 22.85, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Llama 4 Maverick 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, Llama 4 Maverick 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, Llama 4 Maverick 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, Llama 4 Maverick or Llama 4 Scout?

Llama 4 Scout has the larger documented context window: 10M, compared with 1M.

Related comparisons

Last updated September 3, 2026

Watch Llama 4 Maverick 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.