Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct vs GPT-4.1

At a Glance

Compare
GPT-4.1OpenAI
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5UnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort#44 of 463.7 score · 2/3 sources · provisional · missing LiveBench · full-core range 2.5–35.8
Pricing and Limits
Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$0.10Deepinfra · Sep 21, 2026$1.00Openrouter · Sep 3, 2026
Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$0.30Deepinfra · Sep 21, 2026$4.00Openrouter · Sep 3, 2026
Context windowMaximum documented tokens10,000K1,048K
Model facts checkedAug 28, 2026View model evidence →Aug 29, 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

All benchmark results →
BenchmarkLlama-4-Scout-17B-16E-InstructGPT-4.1
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboardv4-ede5081a24bc · overall_accuracy · leader28.1371% of row best · percent · Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct (FC)39.38100% of row best · percent · GPT-4.1-2025-04-14 (Prompt)
LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader1,279.2993% of row best · rating · llama-4-scout-17b-16e-instruct; 95% CI [1274.57681953, 1284.00026285]; votes 29740; rank 2591,382.77100% of row best · rating · gpt-4.1-2025-04-14; 95% CI [1379.06025569, 1386.47352582]; votes 49941; rank 157
LMArena Vision Arenavision-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader1,117.8092% of row best · rating · llama-4-scout-17b-16e-instruct; 95% CI [1108.35603674, 1127.24229078]; votes 6466; rank 1141,210.03100% of row best · rating · gpt-4.1-2025-04-14; 95% CI [1203.34343280, 1216.70707848]; votes 41012; rank 74
Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above0 benchmark wins3 benchmark winsOverall lead

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

FieldLlama-4-Scout-17B-16E-InstructGPT-4.1
DeveloperMetaOpenAI
FamilyLlama 4 Scout 17b 16e InstructGpt 4 1
ModelLlama-4-Scout-17B-16E-InstructGPT-4.1
VersionLlama-4-Scout-17B-16E-InstructGPT-4.1
Lifecycleactiveactive
Released2025-04-05Unknown
Knowledge cutoffUnknown2024-06-01
Input modalitiesText, ImageText, Image
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window10,000K1,048K
Total parameters108.6BUnknown
Active parameters17BUnknown
LicenseotherUnknown
Open weightsYesNo
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableYesNo
Provider accessDeepinfra (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard)Openai (Standard), Openrouter (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, toolschat, generation, tools

Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct Capabilities

chatgenerationtools
Serving providers4
Canonical IDmeta-llama/Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct

GPT-4.1 Capabilities

chatgenerationtools
Serving providers2
Canonical IDopenai/gpt-4.1

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct vs GPT-4.1 FAQs

Is Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct or GPT-4.1 better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct and GPT-4.1, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct or GPT-4.1?+

Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is $0.10 and GPT-4.1 is $1.00 per million tokens, so Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is cheaper on this metric. Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is $0.30 and GPT-4.1 is $4.00 per million tokens, so Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is cheaper on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct or GPT-4.1?+

Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct has the larger sourced context window. Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct supports 10,000K and GPT-4.1 supports 1,048K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct or GPT-4.1?+

GPT-4.1 leads the current overall benchmark count. The result uses 3 protocol-matched benchmarks from 2 publishers; it is not a universal quality score.

Can Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct or GPT-4.1 be self-hosted?+

Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is open weight; GPT-4.1 is not marked open weight.

Can Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct and GPT-4.1 understand images?+

Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is documented with image input; GPT-4.1 is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct or GPT-4.1?+

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is — and GPT-4.1 is 33K.

Do Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct and GPT-4.1 support reasoning and tool use?+

Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct: tool calling and image input. GPT-4.1: tool calling and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct or GPT-4.1?+

Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct has 4 sourced provider routes; GPT-4.1 has 2, so Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct or GPT-4.1?+

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.

Send Feedback