Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E vs phi-4

At a Glance

Compare
phi-4Microsoft
Pricing and Limits
Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokensNot reported$0.070Deepinfra · Sep 21, 2026
Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokensNot reported$0.14Deepinfra · Sep 21, 2026
Context windowMaximum documented tokens10,000K16K
Model facts checkedAug 28, 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

All benchmark results →
No Protocol-Matched Benchmark Yet.Results appear here only when both models share the same benchmark version, metric, evaluation protocol, and evidence class.

Side-by-Side Facts

FieldLlama-4-Scout-17B-16Ephi-4
DeveloperMetaMicrosoft
FamilyLlama 4 Scout 17b 16ePhi 4
ModelLlama-4-Scout-17B-16Ephi-4
VersionLlama-4-Scout-17B-16Ephi-4
Lifecycleactiveactive
Released2025-04-052024-12-12
Knowledge cutoffUnknownUnknown
Input modalitiesText, ImageText
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window10,000K16K
Total parameters108.6B14.7B
Active parameters17BUnknown
Licenseothermit
Open weightsYesYes
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableYesYes
Provider accessTogether Ai (Standard)Deepinfra (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, toolschat, generation

Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Capabilities

chatgenerationtools
Serving providers1
Canonical IDmeta-llama/Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E

phi-4 Capabilities

chatgeneration
Serving providers3
Canonical IDmicrosoft/phi-4

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E vs phi-4 FAQs

Is Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E or phi-4 better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E and phi-4, 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 phi-4?+

Only phi-4 has a directly sourced input price: $0.070 per million tokens. Only phi-4 has a directly sourced output price: $0.14 per million tokens.

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

Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E has the larger sourced context window. Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E supports 10,000K and phi-4 supports 16K.

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

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 phi-4 be self-hosted?+

Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E is open weight; phi-4 is open weight.

Can Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E and phi-4 understand images?+

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

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

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E is — and phi-4 is —.

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

Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E: tool calling and image input. phi-4: none of these features are definitively sourced. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

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

Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E has 1 sourced provider route; phi-4 has 3, so phi-4 has broader tracked availability.

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

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