Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct
At a Glance
| Compare |  Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle DeepMind | |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.30Google AI ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 | $0.10Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 21, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $2.50Google AI ↗ · Aug 29, 2026 | $0.30Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 21, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 1,049K | 10,000K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 29, 2026View model evidence → | Aug 28, 2026View model evidence → |
Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboardv4-ede5081a24bc · overall_accuracy · leader | 50.90100% of row best · percent · Gemini-2.5-Flash (Prompt) | 28.1355% of row best · percent · Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct (FC) |
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,417.27100% of row best · rating · gemini-2.5-flash; 95% CI [1414.83704531, 1419.70406968]; votes 122732; rank 116 | 1,279.2990% of row best · rating · llama-4-scout-17b-16e-instruct; 95% CI [1274.57681953, 1284.00026285]; votes 29740; rank 259 |
| LMArena Vision Arenavision-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,235.98100% of row best · rating · gemini-2.5-flash; 95% CI [1231.30819372, 1240.64679816]; votes 58893; rank 64 | 1,117.8090% of row best · rating · llama-4-scout-17b-16e-instruct; 95% CI [1108.35603674, 1127.24229078]; votes 6466; rank 114 |
| ToneBench2026-09-11-10-task-4ef099199c9c · overall_score · unverified | 72.17100% of row best · points · Gemini 2.5 Flash · 4,399 output tokens / case | 47.3266% of row best · points · Llama 4 Scout · 696 output tokens / case |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 3 benchmark winsOverall lead | 0 benchmark wins |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Google DeepMind | Meta |
| Family | Gemini 2 5 | Llama 4 Scout 17b 16e Instruct |
| Model | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct |
| Version | Gemini 2.5 Flash | Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | 2025-04-05 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2025-01-01 | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Video, Audio | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 1,049K | 10,000K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | 108.6B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | 17B |
| License | Unknown | other |
| Open weights | No | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes |
| Provider access | Google AI (Standard), Google Gemini (Standard) | Deepinfra (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, tools | chat, generation, tools |
Gemini 2.5 Flash Capabilities
Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle DeepMind | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle DeepMind | vs | Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | family variantstext |
 DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | vs | Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle DeepMind | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle DeepMind | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle DeepMind | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peerstext |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle DeepMind | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle DeepMind | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext |
Gemini 2.5 FlashGoogle DeepMind | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Gemini 2.5 Flash vs Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct FAQs
Is Gemini 2.5 Flash or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Gemini 2.5 Flash and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct?+
Gemini 2.5 Flash is $0.30 and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is $0.10 per million tokens, so Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is cheaper on this metric. Gemini 2.5 Flash is $2.50 and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is $0.30 per million tokens, so Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct?+
Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct has the larger sourced context window. Gemini 2.5 Flash supports 1,049K and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct supports 10,000K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct?+
Gemini 2.5 Flash leads the current overall benchmark count. The result uses 3 protocol-matched benchmarks from 2 publishers; it is not a universal quality score.
Can Gemini 2.5 Flash or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct be self-hosted?+
Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Gemini 2.5 Flash is not marked open weight; Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is open weight.
Can Gemini 2.5 Flash and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct understand images?+
Gemini 2.5 Flash is documented with image input; Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Gemini 2.5 Flash is 66K and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is —.
Do Gemini 2.5 Flash and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct support reasoning and tool use?+
Gemini 2.5 Flash: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct: tool calling and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct?+
Gemini 2.5 Flash has 2 sourced provider routes; Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct has 4, so Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Gemini 2.5 Flash or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.