Claude Sonnet 4 vs Llama 4 Scout
A side-by-side comparison of two multimodal models — real specs, pricing, strengths and weaknesses, and a clear verdict on which to choose. Kept current by our agents.
Quick verdict: which should you choose?
Choose Claude Sonnet 4 if you need
- ✓Choose Llama 4 Scout if you need a 10M-token context window for long text and image sequences.
- ✓Choose Llama 4 Scout if you need 112.48 t/s output speed at $0.3 per million tokens.
- ✓Choose Llama 4 Scout if you need an open-weight model from Meta for custom deployment.
- ✓Choose Llama 4 Scout if you need native multimodal input for text and images.
Choose Llama 4 Scout if you need
- ✓Choose Claude Sonnet 4 if you need careful safety alignment and high-quality detailed responses.
- ✓Choose Claude Sonnet 4 if you need strong reasoning and coherence over long inputs with proprietary safeguards.
- ✓Choose Claude Sonnet 4 if you need effective multimodal integration within a 1M-token context.
- ✓Choose Claude Sonnet 4 if you need to avoid open-weight licensing and prioritize caution.
Verdict
Llama 4 Scout leads on measurable dimensions with a 10M-token context, 112.48 t/s speed, and $0.3/M price versus Claude Sonnet 4's 1M context and $15/M price. Claude Sonnet 4 offers proprietary safety alignment and detailed responses where Llama 4 Scout provides open-weight access and native multimodal support. Llama 4 Scout wins on cost and scale; Claude Sonnet 4 wins on alignment when those traits matter.
Claude Sonnet 4 vs Llama 4 Scout: side by side
| Spec | Claude Sonnet 4 | Llama 4 Scout | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence | — | 13.5 | Tie |
| Output speed | — | 112 t/s | Tie |
| Output price | $15.00/1M | $0.30/1M | Llama 4 Scout |
| Context | 1000K | 10000K | Llama 4 Scout |
| Params | — | — | Tie |
| Type | Proprietary | Open-weight | Tie |
| Provider | Anthropic | Meta | Tie |
Detailed analysis
Context Window
Winner: Llama 4 ScoutLlama 4 Scout provides a 10,000,000-token context while Claude Sonnet 4 is limited to 1,000,000 tokens. This gives Llama 4 Scout a clear advantage for processing extremely long multimodal sequences.
Pricing
Winner: Llama 4 ScoutLlama 4 Scout costs $0.3 per million output tokens compared with Claude Sonnet 4 at $15 per million. The tenfold price difference favors Llama 4 Scout for high-volume use.
Speed
Winner: Llama 4 ScoutLlama 4 Scout is rated at 112.48 tokens per second; Claude Sonnet 4 has no speed figure provided. Available data therefore supports Llama 4 Scout on throughput.
Access Model
Winner: Llama 4 ScoutLlama 4 Scout is open-weight from Meta while Claude Sonnet 4 is proprietary from Anthropic. Users needing local or modified deployments must select Llama 4 Scout.
Claude Sonnet 4
Pros
- +Strong reasoning and coherence over long inputs
- +Careful safety alignment
- +High-quality, detailed responses
- +Effective multimodal integration
Cons
- –Conservative refusals on sensitive topics
- –No native audio or video support
- –May prioritize caution over maximum helpfulness
Llama 4 Scout
Pros
- +Extremely large context window
- +Native multimodal input support
- +Strong reasoning over long inputs
Cons
- –High compute cost at maximum context
- –Limited to text and image modalities only
- –May exhibit latency on very long sequences
Summary: Claude Sonnet 4 vs Llama 4 Scout
Llama 4 Scout is the stronger choice for cost, speed, and maximum context length when open weights are acceptable. Claude Sonnet 4 is preferable when safety alignment and proprietary response quality outweigh the higher price and smaller context.
Frequently asked questions
Llama 4 Scout at $0.3 per million output tokens versus Claude Sonnet 4 at $15 per million.