Compare / Nova Micro 1.0 vs Llama 4 Scout
Nova Micro 1.0 vs Llama 4 Scout
16 results from 3 sources that measured both models. Each row is in the source's own units; there is no overall winner.
| Benchmark | Metric | Nova Micro 1.0 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Business, management and financeArena rating | 1,233 | 1,316 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Creative writingArena rating | 1,197 | 1,289 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Expert promptsArena rating | 1,244 | 1,309 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Instruction followingArena rating | 1,215 | 1,299 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | OverallArena rating | 1,241 | 1,322 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Writing, literature and languageArena rating | 1,223 | 1,305 |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Irrelevance detection% correct | 70.7% | 44.9% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Memory% correct | 2.4% | 8.2% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Multi-turn tasks% correct | 1.4% | 9.0% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Overall accuracy% correct | 22.3% | 28.1% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Relevance detection% correct | 81.2% | 100.0% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Single-turn calls (curated)% correct | 74.1% | 89.4% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Single-turn calls (user-contributed)% correct | 66.3% | 74.7% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Web search% correct | 1.5% | 14.5% |
| Vectara Hallucination Leaderboardreported | Answer rate% of documents | 100.0% | 99.0% |
| Vectara Hallucination Leaderboardreported | Hallucination rate% of summaries | 5.5% | 7.7% |
Bold green marks the better value on that metric. Where a source reports ranges that overlap, the difference may not be meaningful; see the benchmark page for ranges.