Model comparison
Grok Build 0.1 vs Llama 4 Scout
Grok Build 0.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.8 to 27.4 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Scout costs 8.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok Build 0.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
MetaSummary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok Build 0.1 scores higher in 2 categories and Llama 4 Scout in 1 category; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Grok Build 0.1 leads 42.5 to 19.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 50.2% for Grok Build 0.1 and 17% for Llama 4 Scout.
- Llama 4 Scout is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.30 per million input/output tokens, against $1 / $2 for Grok Build 0.1.
- Grok Build 0.1 accepts more context: 256K tokens versus 128K.
- Llama 4 Scout has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok Build 0.1 | Llama 4 Scout | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 35.8 | 27.4 |
| Released | 2026-04-16 | 2025-04-05 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 256K | 128K |
| Max output | 256K | 4K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2 | $0.30 |
| Results tracked | 3 | 43 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok Build 0.1 leads
Grok Build 0.1: 42.5 (#90), Llama 4 Scout: 19.9 (#334)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 50.2% | 17% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9.1% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1286 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 43.1% |
Agentic & Tool Use Llama 4 Scout leads
Grok Build 0.1: 22.5 (#122), Llama 4 Scout: 24.4 (#109)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 28.1% |
| GBAEval | 2.4% | — |
Reasoning Grok Build 0.1 leads
Grok Build 0.1: 31.3 (#73), Llama 4 Scout: 9.2 (#339)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 9.1% | 0% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 0% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 36.9% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 0.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1266 |
| DTBench | — | 57.9% |
| LMCA | — | 12% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 129.64 |
| ForecastBench | — | 57.5 |
Math Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, Llama 4 Scout: 18.4 (#280)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 7.8% |
| Omni-MATH | — | 37.3% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1286 |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 62.3% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, Llama 4 Scout: 31.8 (#208)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 51.8% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 74.2% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 7.7% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 50.7% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1236 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, Llama 4 Scout: 31.6 (#98)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1118 |
| SpatialViz-Bench | — | 34.2% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, Llama 4 Scout: 41.3 (#207)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1253 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1256 |
| LMArena French | — | 1283 |
| LMArena German | — | 1274 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1209 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1207 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1263 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1277 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, Llama 4 Scout: 66.0 (#212)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | — | 81.8% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1248 |
Long Context Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, Llama 4 Scout: 27.5 (#289)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 36% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1265 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Grok Build 0.1: —, Llama 4 Scout: 37.1 (#256)
| Benchmark | Grok Build 0.1 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1279 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1249 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 783 |
| WildBench | — | 78% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1281 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok Build 0.1 better than Llama 4 Scout?
Grok Build 0.1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.8 to 27.4 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Scout costs 8.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok Build 0.1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Grok Build 0.1 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; Grok Build 0.1 lists at $1 and $2.
Is Grok Build 0.1 or Llama 4 Scout better for coding?
Grok Build 0.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.5 versus 19.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Grok Build 0.1 does, with 256K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Grok Build 0.1 and Llama 4 Scout share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok Build 0.1 has 3 scored results on Noometry and Llama 4 Scout has 43.