Llama 4 Scout vs Claude Sonnet 4: which should you choose in 2026?
Llama 4 Scout (by Meta) and Claude Sonnet 4 (by Anthropic) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
At least one model uses context-dependent token-pricing tiers, so the published base rates do not support an unconditional blended price comparison.
Llama 4 Scout has the larger context window (1,310,720 tokens vs 1,000,000 tokens).
Choose Llama 4 Scout if…
- • you work with longer documents, transcripts, or codebases
Choose Claude Sonnet 4 if…
- • you need a model with explicit reasoning support
The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.
Performance benchmarks
Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Claude Sonnet 4 |
|---|---|---|
A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework. Guardrail-aware score | — | — |
A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing. Accuracy | — | — |
A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state. Mean task reward | — | 41.4% OSWorld |
A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests. Resolved Protocols differ or are incompletely disclosed; not counted as a controlled win | 9.1% SWE-bench | 64.9% SWE-bench |
Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol. Mean task success | — | — |
A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench. Weighted peer-assessment score | — | — |
The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Accuracy | — | — |
A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged. Accuracy | — | — |
Comprehensive comparison of AI models across intelligence, price, speed, and latency Intelligence Index | — |
Benchmark sources
- OSWorld-Verified Results
- SWE-bench Verified Bash Only Leaderboard
- Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | Llama 4 Scout | Claude Sonnet 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | Meta | Anthropic |
| API provider | Meta | Anthropic |
| Input context | 1,310,720 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens |
| Maximum output | 16,384 tokens | 64,000 tokens |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Apr 5, 2025 | May 22, 2025 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2024-08-31 | 2025-01-31 |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text, Image | Image, Text, File |
| Outputs | Text | Text |
| Provider endpoint accepts tool parameters | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Vision | Yes | Yes |
| Image Generation | No | No |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API pricing | ||
| Base input (per 1M tokens) | $0.10 | $3.00 |
| Base output (per 1M tokens) | $0.30 | $15.00 |
| Higher-context pricing tiers | Base rate only |
|
| Price-comparison caveat | At least one model changes token rates above a prompt-token threshold. Base rates are shown, but an unconditional blended price ratio would not be like-for-like. | |
| API performance | ||
| p95 latency | Not measured | Not measured |
| Output throughput | Not measured | Not measured |
| Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table. | ||
Data sources
- Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)
Catalog data last updated May 22, 2025.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing Llama 4 Scout from Meta with Claude Sonnet 4 from Anthropic? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | Llama 4 Scout | Claude Sonnet 4 | AI Images | AI Video |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writingmate Pro Most popular | $20/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Writingmate Ultimate Power users | $60/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Llama 4 Scout vs Claude Sonnet 4 FAQ
Which is better, Llama 4 Scout or Claude Sonnet 4?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. At least one model uses context-dependent token-pricing tiers, so the published base rates do not support an unconditional blended price comparison. Llama 4 Scout has the larger context window (1,310,720 tokens vs 1,000,000 tokens).
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
At least one model uses context-dependent token-pricing tiers, so the published base rates do not support an unconditional blended price comparison.
Which model supports more context?
Llama 4 Scout has the larger context window (1,310,720 tokens vs 1,000,000 tokens).
Can I switch between Llama 4 Scout and Claude Sonnet 4?
Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.
Related comparisons
More Llama 4 Scout comparisons
Muse Spark 1.2 Contributor
Meta
Muse Spark 1.2 contributor tier is a reasoning model from Meta designed for developers who want to start building at an even lower cost.
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp
DeepSeek
DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp is a model by DeepSeek.
Ox Alpha
Stealth
Ox Alpha is a reasoning model designed for coding, sustained agentic work, and production workloads.
Qwen3.8 27B
Qwen
Qwen3.8 27B is an open-weight dense vision-language model from Qwen.
Gemini 3.7 Flash
Gemini 3.7 Flash is a multimodal model from Google for fast agentic workflows, coding, and complex multi-step reasoning.
Seed 2.1 Turbo
ByteDance
Seed 2.1 Turbo is a multimodal model from ByteDance Seed for coding and long-horizon agent workflows.
More Claude Sonnet 4 comparisons
GPT-5
OpenAI
GPT-5 is OpenAI’s most advanced model, offering major improvements in reasoning, code quality, and user experience.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash is Google's state-of-the-art workhorse model, specifically designed for advanced reasoning, coding, mathematics, and scientific tasks.
Gemini 2.5 Pro
Gemini 2.5 Pro is Google’s state-of-the-art AI model designed for advanced reasoning, coding, mathematics, and scientific tasks.
o3
OpenAI
o3 is a well-rounded and powerful model across domains.
GPT-4.1
OpenAI
GPT-4.1 is a flagship large language model optimized for advanced instruction following, real-world software engineering, and long-context reasoning.
R1
DeepSeek
DeepSeek R1 is here: Performance on par with OpenAI o1, but open-sourced and with fully open reasoning tokens.