Compare / Llama 4 Scout vs GPT-5.6 Terra
Llama 4 Scout vs GPT-5.6 Terra
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 23 results on 3 sources that measured both models.
Llama 4 Scout or GPT-5.6 Terra? The short answer
- Llama 4 Scout is cheaper: $0.28 against $4.50 per million tokens, 16 times less.
- GPT-5.6 Terra scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 42.1 against 8.1.
- GPT-5.6 Terra writes faster: 104 tokens a second against 42.
- On our business benchmarks, Llama 4 Scout ranks higher for sticking to the facts.
- On our business benchmarks, GPT-5.6 Terra ranks higher for agents and tool use, reasoning and knowledge and writing.
At a glance
| Llama 4 Scout | GPT-5.6 Terra | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $0.18 in · $0.59 out | $2.00 in · $12.00 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $0.28 | $4.50 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $0.15 (DeepInfra, FP8) | $2.25 (OpenAI) |
| Intelligence Index | 8.1 | 42.1 |
| Spring Prompt overall | – | – |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 42 | 104 |
| Context window | 1,310,720 tokens | 1,050,000 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-5.6 Terra |
|---|---|---|
| Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls | 148 of 161 | 16 of 161 |
| Professional workReal tasks from banking, consulting and law, business documents and freelance projects | not measured | 10 of 51 |
| Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge | 164 of 195 | 20 of 195 |
| WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality | 163 of 187 | 39 of 187 |
| Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers | 46 of 153 | 49 of 153 |
Every shared result
| Benchmark | Metric | Llama 4 Scout | GPT-5.6 Terra |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Business, management and financeArena rating | 1,316 | 1,466 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Creative writingArena rating | 1,289 | 1,428 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Expert promptsArena rating | 1,309 | 1,504 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Instruction followingArena rating | 1,299 | 1,462 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | OverallArena rating | 1,322 | 1,465 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Writing, literature and languageArena rating | 1,305 | 1,445 |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Artificial Analysis Coding Indexindex score | 8.20 | 76.7 |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score | 8.10 | 42.1 |
| Artificial Analysisreported | GPQA Diamond% of questions | 58.7% | 92.5% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Humanity's Last Exam% of questions | 3.8% | 42.9% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | IFBench% of instructions | 39.5% | 71.2% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions | 27.7% | 83.0% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Output speedtokens per second | 42.0 | 104 |
| Artificial Analysisreported | SciCode% of problems | 21.3% | 55.0% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Terminal-Bench 2.1% of tasks | 3.7% | 88.0% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Terminal-Bench 4.0% of tasks | 0.0% | 35.4% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Terminal-Bench Hard% of tasks | 1.5% | 62.9% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Time to first answer tokenseconds | 0.63 | 0.72 |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Τ-bench banking% of tasks | 3.3% | 40.2% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Τ²-bench telecom% of tasks | 15.5% | 86.3% |
| UGI Leaderboardreported | Requested-length error% off the requested word count | 19.0% | 22.0% |
| UGI Leaderboardreported | Style adherencescore from 0 to 1 | 0.36 | 0.39 |
| UGI Leaderboardreported | Writing scorescore out of 100 | 26.7 | 60.4 |
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-5.6 Terra?
It depends on the task. Among models available today, on our benchmarks and licensed sources, Llama 4 Scout ranks higher for sticking to the facts; GPT-5.6 Terra ranks higher for agents and tool use, reasoning and knowledge and writing.
Which is cheaper, Llama 4 Scout or GPT-5.6 Terra?
Llama 4 Scout costs $0.28 per million tokens (three input to one output), against $4.50 for GPT-5.6 Terra.
Which is faster, Llama 4 Scout or GPT-5.6 Terra?
GPT-5.6 Terra writes about 104 tokens a second on its usual API, against 42 for Llama 4 Scout (Artificial Analysis).
Run Llama 4 Scout and GPT-5.6 Terra on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.