Compare / Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 vs Llama 4 Scout

Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 vs Llama 4 Scout

Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 24 results on 4 sources that measured both models.

AlibabaQwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 Released 29 Jul 2025 · $0.090 in · $0.30 out
MetaLlama 4 Scout Released 5 Apr 2025 · $0.18 in · $0.59 out
Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 wins 17Llama 4 Scout wins 7

Of the 24 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.

Results as of 9 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-09-dd620e778ac5). See also Alibaba vs Meta, every model from both labs.

Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 or Llama 4 Scout? The short answer

They score about the same, so pick Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507: it costs 50% less per token.

  • Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 is cheaper: $0.14 against $0.28 per million tokens, 50% less.
  • They score about the same on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (7.5 and 8.1).
  • Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 is newer: released 29 Jul 2025, against 5 Apr 2025 for Llama 4 Scout.
  • On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 does better for agents and tool use, reasoning and knowledge and writing.

Head to head

7.5
Intelligence Index
8.1
$0.14
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$0.28
262,144
Context window, tokens
1,310,720

Every fact side by side

Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507Llama 4 Scout
Price per million tokens$0.090 in · $0.30 out$0.18 in · $0.59 out
Blended (3 in : 1 out)$0.14$0.28
Cheapest host, blended$0.084 (StreamLake)$0.15 (DeepInfra, FP8)
Intelligence Index7.58.1
Spring Prompt overall––
Output speed, tokens a second–46
Context window262,144 tokens1,310,720 tokens
Released29 Jul 2025 (newer)5 Apr 2025
WeightsOpenOpen
Developer based inChinathe US

Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.

Which is better for what

Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.

Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls 75 of 164 150 of 164
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge 159 of 198 167 of 198
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality 140 of 188 164 of 188
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers not measured 47 of 152

Every shared result

Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.

MeasureQwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507Llama 4 Scout
Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results
Overall · TextArena rating, higher is better 162 · 231 of 387 measured 1,383 1,322
Business, management and finance · TextArena rating, higher is better 144 · 225 of 380 measured 1,397 1,316
Creative writing · TextArena rating, higher is better 186 · 223 of 385 measured 1,319 1,289
Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 209 · 197 of 243 measured 7.5 8.1
GPQA Diamond% of questions, higher is better 172 · 185 of 231 measured 65.9% 58.7%
Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 173 · 221 of 242 measured 6.9% 3.8%
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 reported by Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 · 3 results
Overall accuracy · BFCL% correct, higher is better 32 · 53 of 81 measured 41.4%bfcl fc 28.1%bfcl fc
Irrelevance detection · BFCL% correct, higher is better 49 · 75 of 81 measured 79.9%bfcl fc 44.9%bfcl fc
Memory · BFCL% correct, higher is better 38 · 55 of 81 measured 17.6%bfcl fc 8.2%bfcl fc
UGI Leaderboard reported by UGI Leaderboard · 3 results
Writing score · UGIscore out of 100, higher is better 163 · 169 of 230 measured 27.9 26.7
Requested-length error · UGI% off the requested word count, lower is better 57 · 99 of 230 measured 13.0% 19.0%
Style adherence · UGIscore from 0 to 1, higher is better 187 · 66 of 230 measured 0.31 0.36
Show all 24 results (12 more)
MeasureQwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507Llama 4 Scout
Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results
Expert prompts · TextArena rating, higher is better 163 · 228 of 338 measured 1,395 1,308
Instruction following · TextArena rating, higher is better 164 · 237 of 387 measured 1,367 1,299
Writing, literature and language · TextArena rating, higher is better 176 · 224 of 386 measured 1,342 1,305
Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 4 results
IFBench% of instructions, higher is better 168 · 138 of 195 measured 33.1% 39.5%
Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 191 · 190 of 233 measured 26.3% 27.7%
Terminal-Bench Hard% of tasks, higher is better 147 · 175 of 190 measured 6.1% 1.5%
τ²-bench telecom% of tasks, higher is better 185 · 176 of 193 measured 10.2% 15.5%
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 reported by Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 · 5 results
Multi-turn tasks · BFCL% correct, higher is better 34 · 53 of 81 measured 30.0%bfcl fc 9.0%bfcl fc
Relevance detection · BFCL% correct, higher is better 8 · 1 of 81 measured 93.8%bfcl prompt 100.0%bfcl fc
Single-turn calls (curated) · BFCL% correct, higher is better 9 · 8 of 81 measured 88.9%bfcl prompt 89.4%bfcl fc
Single-turn calls (user-contributed) · BFCL% correct, higher is better 22 · 34 of 81 measured 78.4%bfcl prompt 74.7%bfcl fc
Web search · BFCL% correct, higher is better 30 · 34 of 81 measured 22.5%bfcl fc 14.5%bfcl fc

Quick answers

Is Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 better than Llama 4 Scout?

They score about the same, so pick Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507: it costs 50% less per token.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 or Llama 4 Scout?

Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 is cheaper: $0.14 against $0.28 per million tokens, 50% less.

Which is better for agents and tool use, Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 or Llama 4 Scout?

Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 ranks 75 of 164 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 150 for Llama 4 Scout.

Which is better for reasoning and knowledge, Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 or Llama 4 Scout?

Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 ranks 159 of 198 models on sale for hard questions across science, maths and general knowledge, against 167 for Llama 4 Scout.

Which is better for writing, Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 or Llama 4 Scout?

Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 ranks 140 of 188 models on sale for what people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality, against 164 for Llama 4 Scout.

Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 or Llama 4 Scout?

Llama 4 Scout: 1,310,720 tokens, against 262,144 for Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507.

Run Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 and Llama 4 Scout on your own prompt

Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.

Try the playgroundTalk to us