Head-to-head

Llama 4 (Scout / Maverick) logovsGemini 3 Pro logo

Llama 4 (Scout / Maverick) vs Gemini 3 Pro: which AI model wins in 2026?

Llama 4 (Scout / Maverick) ($0.60/1M out (Maverick, hosted)) and Gemini 3 Pro ($12/1M out (prompts ≤200K)) are two of the most-used AI models in 2026. Across 3 community votes, Gemini 3 Pro leads with 57% approval.

Quick verdict

On Reasoning, pick Gemini 3 Pro: the arena rates it 4.5/5 against 2.5/5 for Llama 4 (Scout / Maverick). On budget, Llama 4 (Scout / Maverick) wins: it starts at $0.60/1M out (Maverick, hosted) versus $12/1M out (prompts ≤200K) for Gemini 3 Pro.

Line-by-line comparison

From
$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).
$12/1M out (prompts ≤200K)Standard tier: $2/$12 per 1M tokens for prompts ≤200K, $4/$18 above 200K; batch at 50% off. Retired March 9, 2026, successor Gemini 3.1 Pro keeps identical pricing.
Provider
Meta
Google (DeepMind)
Context window
10M tokens (Scout) / 1M (Maverick)
1M tokens (64K output)
Input price
$0.15/1M in (Maverick, hosted)
$2/1M in (prompts ≤200K)
Output price
$0.60/1M out (Maverick, hosted)
$12/1M out (prompts ≤200K)
Modalities
text, vision (image input)
text, image, audio, video in; text out
Open weights
Yes
No
Crowd score
50%(0)
57%(3)
Arena ratings (1-5)
Reasoning
2.5
4.5
Coding
2.0
4.5
Writing
2.5
3.5
Speed
4.5
3.5
Value
3.5
4.0

Strengths and weaknesses

Llama 4 (Scout / Maverick)

  • 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)
  • 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

Gemini 3 Pro

  • Topped LMArena at launch with a record 1501 Elo and scored 91.9% on GPQA Diamond, state of the art at release
  • ARC-AGI-2 at 31.1%, roughly 6x Gemini 2.5 Pro (4.9%) and nearly double GPT-5.1 (17.6%) at the time
  • Best-in-class multimodal understanding: 81% MMMU-Pro, 87.6% Video-MMMU, with a 1M-token context window
  • Strong agentic coding: 76.2% SWE-bench Verified, 54.2% Terminal-Bench 2.0, 1487 Elo on WebDev Arena
  • Undercut rivals on price at $2/$12 per 1M tokens, below Claude Sonnet-class pricing ($3/$15)
  • Configurable thinking_level (low/medium/high) lets developers trade reasoning depth against latency and cost
  • Overconfident hallucinations: on AA-Omniscience it gave a wrong answer 88% of the time instead of declining, vs 48% for Claude Sonnet 4.5 (the-decoder)
  • Sycophancy widely reported by reviewers (Zvi Mowshowitz: 'vast intelligence with no spine'); needs tight system prompts
  • Tool-calling reliability issues in agent stacks: devs reported tool outputs dumped into the chat thread and more scaffolding needed than OpenAI/Anthropic models
  • Slow at high thinking level: time to first token measured around 30-60s on AI Studio despite ~130 tok/s output speed
  • Retired: shut down on the Gemini API and AI Studio on March 9, 2026, with gemini-3-pro-preview now aliased to Gemini 3.1 Pro

Cast your verdict

One recommendation per tool per gladiator. It reshapes the crowd score everyone sees.

Llama 4 (Scout / Maverick)$0.60/1M out (Maverick, hosted)
50%crowd score · 0
Gemini 3 Pro$12/1M out (prompts ≤200K)
57%crowd score · 3

The arena’s verdict on Llama 4 (Scout / Maverick)

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.

The arena’s verdict on Gemini 3 Pro

A landmark release that put Google back on top in late 2025, with a huge reasoning jump over Gemini 2.5 Pro and the best multimodal scores of its generation. As of mid-2026 there is no reason to choose it: Google shut it down on the API on March 9, 2026, and Gemini 3.1 Pro costs exactly the same while more than doubling ARC-AGI-2 performance (77.1% vs 31.1%). Teams on legacy deployments should migrate to 3.1 Pro, which the old model ID now points to anyway. Avoid it for hallucination-sensitive workloads unless you add grounding, a weakness reviewers flagged repeatedly.

What the crowd says

On Llama 4 (Scout / Maverick)

No verdicts yet. Be the first to speak.

On Gemini 3 Pro

Judge Dreadful

Confidently wrong is its worst mode. On AA-Omniscience it gave a wrong answer 88% of the time instead of declining. Add the sycophancy and you need a tight system prompt to trust it.

Champion of Vibes

ARC-AGI-2 at 31% was about 6x Gemini 2.5 Pro and nearly double GPT-5.1 at the time. For visual-heavy work (81 MMMU-Pro) nothing else came close.

Glorius Maximus

1501 Elo on LMArena at launch was deserved. Multimodal is where it kills, I feed it lecture videos and dense PDFs and it just gets it. 1M context helps.

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 4 (Scout / Maverick) better than Gemini 3 Pro?

The crowd currently sides with Gemini 3 Pro: 57% recommend it, versus 50% for Llama 4 (Scout / Maverick) (3 votes). On Reasoning, Gemini 3 Pro rates higher (4.5/5 vs 2.5/5). The right pick depends on your use case. The line-by-line comparison on this page breaks down pricing, key specs and arena ratings.

Which is cheaper, Llama 4 (Scout / Maverick) or Gemini 3 Pro?

Llama 4 (Scout / Maverick) is cheaper: it starts at $0.60/1M out (Maverick, hosted), while Gemini 3 Pro starts at $12/1M out (prompts ≤200K).

How much do Llama 4 (Scout / Maverick) and Gemini 3 Pro cost per 1M tokens?

Llama 4 (Scout / Maverick): $0.15/1M in (Maverick, hosted) per 1M input tokens, $0.60/1M out (Maverick, hosted) per 1M output tokens. Gemini 3 Pro: $2/1M in (prompts ≤200K) per 1M input tokens, $12/1M out (prompts ≤200K) per 1M output tokens.