Model comparison
GPT-5.1 vs Llama 4 Scout
GPT-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.0 to 27.7 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Scout costs 23× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 36 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 36 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.1 scores higher in 10 categories and Llama 4 Scout in 0 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.1 leads 52.2 to 19.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 88.6% for GPT-5.1 and 7.8% for Llama 4 Scout.
- Llama 4 Scout is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.30 per million input/output tokens, against $1.25 / $10 for GPT-5.1.
- GPT-5.1 accepts more context: 400K tokens versus 128K.
- Llama 4 Scout has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GPT-5.1 | Llama 4 Scout | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 49.0 | 27.7 |
| Released | 2025-11-13 | 2025-04-05 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 400K | 128K |
| Max output | 128K | 4K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.25 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $0.30 |
| Results tracked | 63 | 43 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 46.4 (#66), Llama 4 Scout: 20.2 (#339)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 66% | 9.1% |
| SciCode | 43.3% | 17% |
| LMArena Coding | 1454 | 1286 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 68% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1395 | — |
| GSO | 13.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 60.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 72.5% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 43.1% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,192 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 32.7 (#60), Llama 4 Scout: 24.6 (#119)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 47.6% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 28.1% |
| DeepResearch Bench | 42.8% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1199 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 1,473 | — |
Reasoning GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 39.8 (#58), Llama 4 Scout: 9.1 (#345)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 17.6% | 0% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 72.8% | 0.5% |
| CritPt | 4.9% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1457 | 1266 |
| DTBench | 90.1% | 57.9% |
| LMCA | 43.9% | 12% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.64 | 129.64 |
| ForecastBench | 58.1 | 57.5 |
| SimpleBench | 53.2% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 36.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | 32% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 11.2% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 95.8% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 19% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 72.1% | — |
| LiveBench | 78.8% | — |
Math GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 52.2 (#51), Llama 4 Scout: 19.6 (#286)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 88.6% | 7.8% |
| Omni-MATH | 46.4% | 37.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1447 | 1287 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 31% | 0% |
| LiveBench Math | 94.5% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 62.3% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 12.5% | — |
Knowledge GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 50.6 (#71), Llama 4 Scout: 31.9 (#217)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 87.6% | 51.8% |
| MMLU-Pro | 57.9% | 74.2% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.9% | 7.7% |
| GPQA (HELM) | 44.2% | 50.7% |
| LMArena Expert | 1470 | 1235 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 23.7% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 48% | — |
Multimodal GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 44.8 (#19), Llama 4 Scout: 32.2 (#102)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1250 | 1118 |
| VPCT | 58.7% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1403 | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | — | 34.2% |
Multilingual GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 53.8 (#56), Llama 4 Scout: 41.0 (#212)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1431 | 1252 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1495 | 1255 |
| LMArena French | 1450 | 1282 |
| LMArena German | 1438 | 1272 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1453 | 1206 |
| LMArena Korean | 1401 | 1207 |
| LMArena Russian | 1435 | 1263 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1433 | 1278 |
Instruction Following GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 83.9 (#1), Llama 4 Scout: 65.8 (#217)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | 93.5% | 81.8% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1443 | 1248 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 93.3% | — |
Long Context GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 47.6 (#14), Llama 4 Scout: 27.5 (#294)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1447 | 1265 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 36% |
| CL-bench | 23.7% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 17.3% | — |
Writing & Preference GPT-5.1 leads
GPT-5.1: 64.5 (#55), Llama 4 Scout: 37.0 (#261)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.1 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1443 | 1279 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1427 | 1249 |
| WildBench | 86.3% | 78% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1450 | 1280 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 783 |
| LiveBench Language | 80.2% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.1 better than Llama 4 Scout?
GPT-5.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 49.0 to 27.7 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Scout costs 23× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.1 or Llama 4 Scout?
Llama 4 Scout is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens; GPT-5.1 lists at $1.25 and $10.
Is GPT-5.1 or Llama 4 Scout better for coding?
GPT-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.4 versus 20.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.1 does, with 400K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.1 and Llama 4 Scout share?
36 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.1 has 63 scored results on Noometry and Llama 4 Scout has 43.