Llama 4 Scout vs GLM 5
| Signal | Llama 4 Scout | Delta | GLM 5 |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 67 | -- | |
Benchmarks | 59 | -22 | |
Pricing | 100 | +2 | |
Context window size | 97 | +13 | |
Recency | 38 | -57 | |
Output Capacity | 67 | -14 | |
| Overall Result | 2 wins | of 6 | 3 wins |
Score History
60.2
current score
GLM 5
right now
78
current score
Llama 4 Scout
Meta
GLM 5
Zhipu AI
Llama 4 Scout saves you $131.00/month
That's $1572.00/year compared to GLM 5 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Llama 4 Scout | GLM 5 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 60 | 78 | GLM 5 |
| Rank | #219 | #109 | GLM 5 |
| Quality Rank | #219 | #109 | GLM 5 |
| Adoption Rank | #219 | #109 | GLM 5 |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 1311K | 205K | Llama 4 Scout |
| Pricing | $0.10/$0.30/M | $0.60/$1.92/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 67 | 67 | Llama 4 Scout |
| Benchmarks | 59 | 81 | GLM 5 |
| Pricing | 100 | 98 | Llama 4 Scout |
| Context window size | 97 | 84 | Llama 4 Scout |
| Recency | 38 | 94 | GLM 5 |
| Output Capacity | 67 | 82 | GLM 5 |
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 #219), placing it in the top 25% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 78/100 (rank #109), placing it in the top 63% of all 290 models tracked.
GLM 5 has a 18-point advantage, which typically translates to noticeably stronger performance on complex reasoning, code generation, and multi-step tasks.
Choose Llama 4 Scout when you need:
- High-volume production workloads where API costs must be minimized
- Processing long documents or large codebases (1311K token context)
- Multimodal workflows that require image understanding
- Self-hosted deployments where you need full control over the model
Choose GLM 5 when you need:
- Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
- Self-hosted deployments where you need full control over the model
Llama 4 Scout offers 84% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $6.00/month with Llama 4 Scout vs $37.80/month with GLM 5 - a $31.80 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. Llama 4 Scout 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 ($0.30/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (78/100) 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
GLM 5 clearly outperforms Llama 4 Scout with a significant 17.799999999999997-point lead. For most general use cases, GLM 5 is the stronger choice. However, Llama 4 Scout may still excel in niche scenarios.
By Use Case
Best for Quality
Llama 4 Scout
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Llama 4 Scout
84% 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 Cost - 84% lower pricing; better value at scale
- 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 | GLM 5 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input)differs | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoningdiffers | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Llama 4 Scout
Meta
GLM 5
Zhipu AI
Llama 4 Scout saves you $2.84/month
That's 84% cheaper than GLM 5 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 | GLM 5 |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 1.3M | 205K |
| Max Output Tokens | 16,384 | 128,000 |
| Open Source | Yes | Yes |
| Created | Apr 5, 2025 | Feb 11, 2026 |