# Grok 4.7 vs Llama 4 Scout

> Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.6 to 27.4 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Scout costs 20× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/grok-4-7-vs-llama-4-scout
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 15

## Summary

- They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.7 scores higher in 8 categories and Llama 4 Scout in 1 category; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Grok 4.7 leads 55.0 to 19.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 57.4% for Grok 4.7 and 17% for Llama 4 Scout.
- Llama 4 Scout is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.30 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $6 for Grok 4.7.
- Grok 4.7 accepts more context: 500K tokens versus 128K.
- Llama 4 Scout has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Grok 4.7 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Meta |
| Noometry Index | 46.6 | 27.4 |
| Rank | 56 | 323 |
| Context | 500K | 128K |
| Input $/M | $2 | $0.10 |
| Output $/M | $6 | $0.30 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Grok 4.7: 55.0 (#23)
- Llama 4 Scout: 19.9 (#334)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 57.4% | 17% |
| LMArena Coding | 1423 | 1286 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9.1% |
| CursorBench | 46.3% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1636 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 29.5% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 43.1% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Grok 4.7: —
- Llama 4 Scout: 24.4 (#109)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 28.1% |

## Reasoning

- Grok 4.7: 40.1 (#49)
- Llama 4 Scout: 9.2 (#339)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 17.7% | 0% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1409 | 1266 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | — | 0% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 36.9% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 76.8% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 0.5% |
| DTBench | — | 57.9% |
| LMCA | — | 12% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 129.64 |
| ForecastBench | — | 57.5 |

## Math

- Grok 4.7: 41.1 (#73)
- Llama 4 Scout: 18.4 (#280)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1393 | 1286 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 7.8% |
| ProofBench | 34% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 37.3% |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 62.3% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 0% |

## Knowledge

- Grok 4.7: 38.7 (#130)
- Llama 4 Scout: 31.8 (#208)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1413 | 1236 |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 51.8% |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 74.2% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 7.7% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 50.7% |

## Multimodal

- Grok 4.7: 28.8 (#107)
- Llama 4 Scout: 31.6 (#98)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1118 |
| Furniture Assembly | 20.8% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | — | 34.2% |

## Multilingual

- Grok 4.7: 51.2 (#108)
- Llama 4 Scout: 41.3 (#207)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1392 | 1253 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1476 | 1256 |
| LMArena Russian | 1396 | 1263 |
| LMArena French | — | 1283 |
| LMArena German | — | 1274 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1209 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1207 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1277 |

## Instruction Following

- Grok 4.7: 74.3 (#98)
- Llama 4 Scout: 66.0 (#212)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1406 | 1248 |
| IFEval | — | 81.8% |

## Long Context

- Grok 4.7: 43.2 (#97)
- Llama 4 Scout: 27.5 (#289)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1416 | 1265 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 36% |

## Writing & Preference

- Grok 4.7: 70.1 (#23)
- Llama 4 Scout: 37.1 (#256)

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1397 | 1279 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1391 | 1249 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2007 | 783 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1389 | 1281 |
| WildBench | — | 78% |

## FAQ

### Is Grok 4.7 better than Llama 4 Scout?

Grok 4.7 is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.6 to 27.4 on the Noometry Index. Llama 4 Scout costs 20× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Grok 4.7's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Grok 4.7 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 4.7 lists at $2 and $6.

### Is Grok 4.7 or Llama 4 Scout better for coding?

Grok 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.0 versus 19.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Grok 4.7 does, with 500K tokens against 128K.

### How many benchmarks do Grok 4.7 and Llama 4 Scout share?

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.7 has 21 scored results on Noometry and Llama 4 Scout has 43.