Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E vs GPT-4o
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
Technical Differences
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E | GPT-4o |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Meta | OpenAI |
| Family | Llama 4 Scout 17b 16e | Gpt 4o |
| Model | Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E | GPT-4o |
| Version | Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E | GPT-4o |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2025-04-05 | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | 2023-10-01 |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 10,000,000 | 128,000 |
| Total parameters | 108,641,793,536 | Unknown |
| Active parameters | 17,000,000,000 | Unknown |
| License | other | Unknown |
| Open weights | Yes | No |
| API available | Unknown | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | No |
| Provider access | Unknown | OpenAI (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, tools | chat, generation, tools |
11 comparable fields · 7 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E Capabilities
GPT-4o Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| vs | family variantsimage, text | ||
GPT-4.1OpenAI | vs | GPT-4oOpenAI | family variantsimage, text |
GPT-4.1 MiniOpenAI | vs | GPT-4oOpenAI | family variantsimage, text |
| vs | family variantsimage, text | ||
| vs | family variantsimage, text | ||
GPT-4.1 NanoOpenAI | vs | GPT-4oOpenAI | family variantsimage, text |
GPT-4oOpenAI | vs | GPT-5.6 LunaOpenAI | family variantsimage, text |
| vs |  Mistral-Small-4-119B-2603Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text | |
| vs | Mistral-Medium-3.5-128BMistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text | |
| vs | cross-developer peersimage, text | ||
| vs | Ministral-3-14B-Instruct-2512Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text | |
| vs | GPT-4oOpenAI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E vs GPT-4o FAQs
Is Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E or GPT-4o better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E and GPT-4o, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E or GPT-4o?+
Only GPT-4o has a directly sourced input price: $2.50 per million tokens. Only GPT-4o has a directly sourced output price: $10.00 per million tokens.
Which has a larger context window, Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E or GPT-4o?+
Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E has the larger sourced context window. Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E supports 10,000,000 and GPT-4o supports 128,000.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E or GPT-4o?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E or GPT-4o be self-hosted?+
Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E is open weight; GPT-4o is not marked open weight.
Can Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E and GPT-4o understand images?+
Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E is documented with image input; GPT-4o is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E or GPT-4o?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E is — and GPT-4o is 16,384.
Do Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E and GPT-4o support reasoning and tool use?+
Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E: tool calling and image input. GPT-4o: tool calling and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E or GPT-4o?+
Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E has 0 sourced provider routes; GPT-4o has 2, so GPT-4o has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E or GPT-4o?+
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.