Model comparison
Llama 4 Scout vs Qwen Plus
Qwen Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.1 to 27.7 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Scout costs 4.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 4 Scout scores higher in 1 category and Qwen Plus in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen Plus leads 28.4 to 9.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Kagi LLM Benchmark: 36.9% for Llama 4 Scout and 63.3% for Qwen Plus.
- Llama 4 Scout is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.30 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $1.20 for Qwen Plus.
- Qwen Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
- Llama 4 Scout has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Llama 4 Scout | Qwen Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 27.7 | 37.1 |
| Released | 2025-04-05 | 2024-01-25 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Max output | 4K | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.10 | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $1.20 |
| Results tracked | 43 | 20 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen Plus leads
Llama 4 Scout: 20.2 (#339), Qwen Plus: 38.9 (#167)
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1286 | 1328 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 9.1% | — |
| SciCode | 17% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 43.1% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Llama 4 Scout: 24.6 (#119), Qwen Plus: —
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 28.1% | — |
Reasoning Qwen Plus leads
Llama 4 Scout: 9.1 (#345), Qwen Plus: 28.4 (#107)
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 36.9% | 63.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1266 | 1317 |
| DTBench | 57.9% | 81.1% |
| LMCA | 12% | 24% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 0% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 0.5% | — |
| CritPt | 0% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 129.64 | — |
| ForecastBench | 57.5 | — |
Math Qwen Plus leads
Llama 4 Scout: 19.6 (#286), Qwen Plus: 23.3 (#271)
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 7.8% | 17.8% |
| LMArena Math | 1287 | 1326 |
| MATH Level 5 | 62.3% | 65.3% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 0% | 1.7% |
| Omni-MATH | 37.3% | — |
Knowledge Llama 4 Scout leads
Llama 4 Scout: 31.9 (#217), Qwen Plus: 27.4 (#251)
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 51.8% | 48.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1235 | 1328 |
| MMLU-Pro | 74.2% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7.7% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 50.7% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Llama 4 Scout: 32.2 (#102), Qwen Plus: —
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1118 | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 34.2% | — |
Multilingual Qwen Plus leads
Llama 4 Scout: 41.0 (#212), Qwen Plus: 45.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1252 | 1310 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1255 | 1347 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1206 | 1251 |
| LMArena Russian | 1263 | 1323 |
| LMArena French | 1282 | — |
| LMArena German | 1272 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1207 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1278 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen Plus leads
Llama 4 Scout: 65.8 (#217), Qwen Plus: 68.8 (#181)
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1248 | 1303 |
| IFEval | 81.8% | — |
Long Context Qwen Plus leads
Llama 4 Scout: 27.5 (#294), Qwen Plus: 40.3 (#158)
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1265 | 1324 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 36% | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen Plus leads
Llama 4 Scout: 37.0 (#261), Qwen Plus: 52.2 (#176)
| Benchmark | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1279 | 1326 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1249 | 1293 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1280 | 1336 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 783 | — |
| WildBench | 78% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 4 Scout better than Qwen Plus?
Qwen Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.1 to 27.7 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Scout costs 4.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen Plus's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Llama 4 Scout or Qwen Plus?
Llama 4 Scout is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens; Qwen Plus lists at $0.40 and $1.20.
Is Llama 4 Scout or Qwen Plus better for coding?
Qwen Plus scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.9 versus 20.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen Plus does, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Llama 4 Scout and Qwen Plus share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 4 Scout has 43 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Plus has 20.