Model comparison
Llama 4 Scout vs Qwen2.5-VL-32B
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Llama 4 Scout #174 (Supported); Qwen2.5-VL-32B #175 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Llama 4 Scout and Qwen2.5-VL-32B share 0 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 18 results are unique to Llama 4 Scout; 0 to Qwen2.5-VL-32B.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- Llama 4 Scout only
- 18
- Qwen2.5-VL-32B only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Llama 4 Scout and Qwen2.5-VL-32B is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM does not have sourced benchmark coverage for Qwen2.5-VL-32B yet. This comparison is currently limited to metadata such as context window, reasoning mode, and pricing where available.
Llama 4 Scout has the larger context window at 10M, compared with 32K for Qwen2.5-VL-32B.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen2.5-VL-32B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Llama 4 Scout$0 input / $0 output | Qwen2.5-VL-32B$0 input / $0 output | Listed prices are equal. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Llama 4 Scout128 tok/s | Qwen2.5-VL-32BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Llama 4 Scout0.70 s | Qwen2.5-VL-32BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Llama 4 Scout10M | Qwen2.5-VL-32B32K | Llama 4 Scout lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic4 benchmarks
Coding2 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen2.5-VL-32B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 10.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 58.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | 4.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -52.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 14.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 78.3% | — | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen2.5-VL-32B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 0.000% | — | Not comparable |
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen2.5-VL-32B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 39.5% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Llama 4 Scout and Qwen2.5-VL-32B on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for Llama 4 Scout and Qwen2.5-VL-32B today?
Llama 4 Scout: $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens Qwen2.5-VL-32B: $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.