Helix 02 vs Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct
At a Glance
| Compare |  Helix 02Figure | |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | Not reported | 10,000K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 29, 2026View model evidence → | Aug 28, 2026View model evidence → |
Available Benchmarks
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Helix 02 | Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Figure | Meta |
| Family | Helix | Llama 4 Scout 17b 16e Instruct |
| Model | Helix 02 | Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct |
| Version | 02 | Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2026-01-05 | 2025-04-05 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Robot state | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Robot action | Text |
| Context window | Unknown | 10,000K |
| Total parameters | Unknown | 108.6B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | 17B |
| License | Unknown | other |
| Open weights | No | Yes |
| API available | No | Yes |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes |
| Provider access | Unknown | Deepinfra (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | dexterous-manipulation, long-horizon-control, tactile-control, whole-body-control | chat, generation, tools |
| Robotics model type | Vision-language-action model | Unknown |
| Action representation | Full-body joint targets | Unknown |
| Control architecture | Semantic reasoning, visuomotor policy, and kHz whole-body controller | Unknown |
| Inference location | On device | Unknown |
| Native control rate (Hz) | Unknown | Unknown |
| Supported embodiments | Figure 03 | Unknown |
| Training data | Figure reports more than 1,000 hours of human motion data plus sim-to-real reinforcement learning for its whole-body controller. | Unknown |
Helix 02 Capabilities
Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct Capabilities
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Helix 02Figure | vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peers |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Helix 02Figure | cross-developer peers |
Helix 02Figure | vs |  Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peers |
 DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | vs | Helix 02Figure | cross-developer peers |
Helix 02Figure | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peers |
Helix 02Figure | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peers |
Helix 02Figure | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peers |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Helix 02Figure | cross-developer peers |
Helix 02Figure | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peers |
Helix 02Figure | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peers |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | Helix 02Figure | cross-developer peers |
Helix 02Figure | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peers |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Helix 02 vs Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct FAQs
Is Helix 02 or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Helix 02 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, Helix 02 or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct?+
Only Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct has a directly sourced input price: $0.10 per million tokens. Only Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct has a directly sourced output price: $0.30 per million tokens.
Which has a larger context window, Helix 02 or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct?+
Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. Helix 02 is — and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is 10,000K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Helix 02 or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Helix 02 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. Helix 02 is not marked open weight; Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is open weight.
Can Helix 02 and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct understand images?+
Helix 02 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, Helix 02 or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Helix 02 is — and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is —.
Do Helix 02 and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct support reasoning and tool use?+
Helix 02: 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, Helix 02 or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct?+
Helix 02 has 0 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, Helix 02 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.