The arena · AI model review
Llama 4 (Scout / Maverick)
by Meta
Meta's open-weight MoE duo: 17B active params, native image input, 10M-token context on paper
$0.60/1M out (Maverick, hosted)
No first-party paid Meta API; typical third-party hosted rates shown for Maverick (Scout from ~$0.10/$0.30 per 1M on DeepInfra, $0.11/$0.34 on Groq). Hosted Scout context is capped well below the 10M nominal spec (e.g. ~320K on DeepInfra).
Meta
10M tokens (Scout) / 1M (Maverick)
$0.15/1M in (Maverick, hosted)
$0.60/1M out (Maverick, hosted)
text, vision (image input)
Yes
What is Llama 4 (Scout / Maverick)?
Meta's first natively multimodal mixture-of-experts open-weight models, released April 5, 2025. Scout (109B total params, 16 experts) targets single-GPU deployment with a nominal 10M-token context; Maverick (400B total, 128 experts) is the flagship chat model with a 1M-token window.
Llama 4 (Scout / Maverick) pros & cons
Pros
- MoE efficiency: only 17B active parameters per token (Scout 109B/16 experts, Maverick 400B/128 experts), giving near GPT-4o-class chat at a fraction of the compute
- Very cheap hosted inference: Maverick from about $0.15/1M in and $0.60/1M out; Scout from about $0.10/$0.30 on DeepInfra or $0.11/$0.34 on Groq
- Native early-fusion multimodality (text plus images, tested up to 8 images) in an open-weight model
- Largest nominal context of any open-weight model at release: 10M tokens on Scout, 1M on Maverick
- Scout fits on a single H100 GPU with Int4 quantization; pretrained on 200 languages
- High throughput: 17B active params reach 500+ tokens/s on fast providers (Groq lists Scout at 594 TPS)
Cons
- Benchmark trust damaged: Meta submitted an unreleased chat-optimized Maverick variant to LMArena (ELO 1417), which devs called misleading since public weights score lower
- Long-context claims collapse in practice: Scout scored ~15.6% at 128K on Fiction.LiveBench vs 90.6% for Gemini 2.5 Pro, and hosted providers cap Scout far below 10M (e.g. ~320K on DeepInfra)
- Coding widely panned on r/LocalLlama and HN, losing to the similarly-priced DeepSeek V3 on real dev tasks
- Not OSI open source: license excludes EU-domiciled companies, requires a special license above 700M MAU, and mandates Llama branding
- 109B/400B total params are too big for consumer GPUs, and the lineage stalled: no reasoning variant shipped and Behemoth was never released
The arena’s verdict
Pick Llama 4 if you need a cheap, fast, self-hostable multimodal model for high-volume chat, extraction, or multilingual workloads outside the EU; Maverick lands near GPT-4o quality at roughly a tenth of the price. Avoid it for coding, hard reasoning, or genuine million-token retrieval, where DeepSeek, Qwen 3, and Gemini clearly outperform it. Versus Llama 3.3 70B it adds native vision and a longer window, but many developers found the older dense model or Qwen more reliable for pure text quality, and the 10M context is mostly a paper number.
Thumbs up or thumbs down
Cast your verdict
Would you recommend Llama 4 (Scout / Maverick), or warn the crowd away?
Top Llama 4 (Scout / Maverick) alternatives
All alternativesAnthropic's fastest model: about 90% of Sonnet 4.5's coding skill at $1/$5 per 1M tokens, 200K context.
Anthropic's April 2026 Opus: 87.6% SWE-bench Verified, 1M context, high-res vision, now behind Opus 4.8
Anthropic's flagship Opus-tier model for long-horizon agentic coding; 1M context at $5/$25 per 1M tokens.
Compare Llama 4 (Scout / Maverick) head-to-head
Llama 4 (Scout / Maverick): frequently asked questions
How much does Llama 4 (Scout / Maverick) cost per 1M tokens?
Llama 4 (Scout / Maverick) costs $0.15/1M in (Maverick, hosted) per 1M input tokens and $0.60/1M out (Maverick, hosted) per 1M output tokens. No first-party paid Meta API; typical third-party hosted rates shown for Maverick (Scout from ~$0.10/$0.30 per 1M on DeepInfra, $0.11/$0.34 on Groq). Hosted Scout context is capped well below the 10M nominal spec (e.g. ~320K on DeepInfra).