Compare / Llama 4 Scout vs GPT-4.1 Nano
Llama 4 Scout vs GPT-4.1 Nano
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 24 results on 3 sources that measured both models.
Llama 4 Scout or GPT-4.1 Nano? The short answer
- GPT-4.1 Nano is cheaper: $0.18 against $0.28 per million tokens, 38% less.
- They score about the same on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (8.1 and 7.8).
- On our business benchmarks, Llama 4 Scout ranks higher for reasoning and knowledge and sticking to the facts.
- On our business benchmarks, GPT-4.1 Nano ranks higher for agents and tool use and writing.
At a glance
| Llama 4 Scout | GPT-4.1 Nano | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $0.18 in · $0.59 out | $0.10 in · $0.40 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $0.28 | $0.18 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $0.15 (DeepInfra, FP8) | $0.18 (Azure) |
| Intelligence Index | 8.1 | 7.8 |
| Spring Prompt overall | – | – |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 42 | – |
| Context window | 1,310,720 tokens | 1,047,576 tokens |
| Weights | Open | Closed |
| Developer based in | the US | the 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 models available today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. The better rank is in green.
| Use case | Llama 4 Scout | GPT-4.1 Nano |
|---|---|---|
| Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls | 148 of 161 | 139 of 161 |
| Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge | 164 of 195 | 169 of 195 |
| WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality | 163 of 187 | 162 of 187 |
| Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers | 46 of 153 | 151 of 153 |
Every shared result
| Benchmark | Metric | Llama 4 Scout | GPT-4.1 Nano |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Business, management and financeArena rating | 1,316 | 1,321 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Creative writingArena rating | 1,289 | 1,307 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Expert promptsArena rating | 1,309 | 1,313 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Instruction followingArena rating | 1,299 | 1,300 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | OverallArena rating | 1,322 | 1,322 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Writing, literature and languageArena rating | 1,305 | 1,299 |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Artificial Analysis Coding Indexindex score | 8.20 | 11.1 |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score | 8.10 | 7.80 |
| Artificial Analysisreported | GPQA Diamond% of questions | 58.7% | 51.2% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Humanity's Last Exam% of questions | 3.8% | 3.8% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | IFBench% of instructions | 39.5% | 32.0% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions | 27.7% | 20.3% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Terminal-Bench 2.1% of tasks | 3.7% | 3.7% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Terminal-Bench Hard% of tasks | 1.5% | 3.8% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Τ-bench banking% of tasks | 3.3% | 3.5% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Τ²-bench telecom% of tasks | 15.5% | 17.3% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Irrelevance detection% correct | 44.9% | 83.4% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Memory% correct | 8.2% | 18.9% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Multi-turn tasks% correct | 9.0% | 23.6% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Overall accuracy% correct | 28.1% | 33.0% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Relevance detection% correct | 100.0% | 93.8% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Single-turn calls (curated)% correct | 89.4% | 73.0% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Single-turn calls (user-contributed)% correct | 74.7% | 60.8% |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4reported | Web search% correct | 14.5% | 11.0% |
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.
Quick answers
Is Llama 4 Scout better than GPT-4.1 Nano?
It depends on the task. Among models available today, on our benchmarks and licensed sources, Llama 4 Scout ranks higher for reasoning and knowledge and sticking to the facts; GPT-4.1 Nano ranks higher for agents and tool use and writing.
Which is cheaper, Llama 4 Scout or GPT-4.1 Nano?
GPT-4.1 Nano costs $0.18 per million tokens (three input to one output), against $0.28 for Llama 4 Scout.
Run Llama 4 Scout and GPT-4.1 Nano on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.