Llama 4 Scout vs Phi 4
| Signal | Llama 4 Scout | Delta | Phi 4 |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 67 | +33 | |
Benchmarks | 59 | -6 | |
Pricing | 100 | 0 | |
Context window size | 97 | +30 | |
Recency | 39 | +16 | |
Output Capacity | 67 | +1 | |
| Overall Result | 4 wins | of 6 | 2 wins |
Score History
60.2
current score
Tied
right now
60.2
current score
Llama 4 Scout
Meta
Phi 4
Microsoft
Phi 4 saves you $11.00/month
That's $132.00/year compared to Llama 4 Scout at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Llama 4 Scout | Phi 4 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 60 | 60 | -- |
| Rank | #211 | #212 | Llama 4 Scout |
| Quality Rank | #211 | #212 | Llama 4 Scout |
| Adoption Rank | #211 | #212 | Llama 4 Scout |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 1311K | 16K | Llama 4 Scout |
| Pricing | $0.10/$0.30/M | $0.07/$0.14/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 67 | 33 | Llama 4 Scout |
| Benchmarks | 59 | 65 | Phi 4 |
| Pricing | 100 | 100 | Phi 4 |
| Context window size | 97 | 67 | Llama 4 Scout |
| Recency | 39 | 24 | Llama 4 Scout |
| Output Capacity | 67 | 67 | Llama 4 Scout |
Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.
Scores 60/100 (rank #211), placing it in the top 28% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 60/100 (rank #212), placing it in the top 27% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 0-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.
Choose Llama 4 Scout when you need:
- Processing long documents or large codebases (1311K token context)
- Multimodal workflows that require image understanding
- Agentic applications using tool/function calling
- Self-hosted deployments where you need full control over the model
Choose Phi 4 when you need:
- High-volume production workloads where API costs must be minimized
- Self-hosted deployments where you need full control over the model
Phi 4 offers 47% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $3.15/month with Phi 4 vs $6.00/month with Llama 4 Scout - a $2.85 monthly difference.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. Phi 4 also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (1311K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($0.14/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (60/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
Llama 4 Scout and Phi 4 are extremely close in overall performance (only 0 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.
By Use Case
Best for Quality
Llama 4 Scout
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Phi 4
47% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Llama 4 Scout
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Llama 4 Scout
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Llama 4 Scout
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Meta
- Choose for Quality - Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
- Choose for Reliability - Higher uptime and faster response speeds
- Choose for Prototyping - Stronger community support and better developer experience
- Choose for Production - Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
| Capability | Llama 4 Scout | Phi 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input)differs | ||
| Function Callingdiffers | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Llama 4 Scout
Meta
Phi 4
Microsoft
Phi 4 saves you $0.2460/month
That's 46% cheaper than Llama 4 Scout at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | Llama 4 Scout | Phi 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 1.3M | 16K |
| Max Output Tokens | 16,384 | 14,745 |
| Open Source | Yes | Yes |
| Created | Apr 5, 2025 | Jan 10, 2025 |