Olmo 3 32B Think vs Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct
At a Glance
| Compare | ||
|---|---|---|
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.15Openrouter ↗ · Aug 28, 2026 | $0.10Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 21, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.50Openrouter ↗ · Aug 28, 2026 | $0.30Deepinfra ↗ · Sep 21, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 66K | 10,000K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 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
| Benchmark | Olmo-3-32B-Think | Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader | 1,299.71100% of row best · rating · olmo-3-32b-think; 95% CI [1291.40753288, 1308.02044894]; votes 5682; rank 234 | 1,279.2998% of row best · rating · llama-4-scout-17b-16e-instruct; 95% CI [1274.57681953, 1284.00026285]; votes 29740; rank 259 |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 1 benchmark winNo overall winner | 0 benchmark winsNo overall winner |
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 | Olmo-3-32B-Think | Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Ai2 | Meta |
| Family | Olmo 3 32b Think | Llama 4 Scout 17b 16e Instruct |
| Model | Olmo-3-32B-Think | Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct |
| Version | Olmo-3-32B-Think | Llama-4-Scout-17B-16E-Instruct |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | 2025-04-05 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 66K | 10,000K |
| Total parameters | 32.2B | 108.6B |
| Active parameters | Unknown | 17B |
| License | apache-2.0 | other |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Provider access | Openrouter (Standard) | Deepinfra (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning | chat, generation, tools |
Olmo 3 32B Think Capabilities
Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All text comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| vs |  GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashDeepSeek | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peerstext | |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Olmo 3 32B Think vs Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct FAQs
Is Olmo 3 32B Think or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Olmo 3 32B Think 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, Olmo 3 32B Think or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct?+
Olmo 3 32B Think is $0.15 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. Olmo 3 32B Think is $0.50 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, Olmo 3 32B Think or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct?+
Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct has the larger sourced context window. Olmo 3 32B Think supports 66K and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct supports 10,000K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Olmo 3 32B Think 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 Olmo 3 32B Think or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: supported. Olmo 3 32B Think is open weight; Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is open weight.
Can Olmo 3 32B Think and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct understand images?+
Olmo 3 32B Think is not 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, Olmo 3 32B Think or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Olmo 3 32B Think is 33K and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct is —.
Do Olmo 3 32B Think and Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct support reasoning and tool use?+
Olmo 3 32B Think: reasoning. 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, Olmo 3 32B Think or Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct?+
Olmo 3 32B Think has 1 sourced provider route; Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct has 4, so Llama 4 Scout 17B 16E Instruct has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Olmo 3 32B Think 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.