+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Llama 4 Scout vs Mistral NeMo Instruct
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Llama 4 Scout leads with 11.6% higher average benchmark score. Llama 4 Scout offers 19.7M more tokens in context window than Mistral NeMo Instruct. Both models have similar pricing. Llama 4 Scout supports multimodal inputs. Llama 4 Scout is available on 6 providers. Overall, Llama 4 Scout is the stronger choice for coding tasks.
+
+
+
+
Meta
Llama 4 Scout was created as an exploratory variant in the Llama 4 family, designed to investigate new architectures and optimization strategies. Built as part of Meta's commitment to advancing open-source AI, it serves as a testbed for innovations that may inform future model releases.
+
+
+
+
Mistral AI
Mistral Nemo was developed as a mid-sized instruction-tuned model, designed to balance capability with efficiency for practical deployments. Built to serve as a versatile foundation for various applications, it provides reliable performance across general language understanding and generation tasks.
8 months newer
Mistral NeMo Instruct
Mistral AI
2024-07-18
Llama 4 Scout
Meta
2025-04-05
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Pricing Comparison
Cost per million tokens (USD)
+
+
+
+
Llama 4 Scout
Input:$0.08
Output:$0.30
+
+
+
+
Mistral NeMo Instruct
Input:$0.15
Output:$0.15($0.08 cheaper)
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 1 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Llama 4 Scout
Average Score:79.6%(+11.6%)
+
+
+
+
Mistral NeMo Instruct
Average Score:68.0%
Provider Availability & Performance
Available providers and their performance metrics
+
+
+
+
Llama 4 Scout
6 providers
DeepInfra
Throughput: 76.1 tok/s
Latency: 0.31ms
Fireworks
Throughput: 116.1 tok/s
Latency: 0.53ms
Groq
Throughput: 776.1 tok/s
Latency: 1.08ms
Lambda
Throughput: 139.7 tok/s
Latency: 0.43ms
Novita
+
+
+
+
Llama 4 Scout
Avg Score:79.6%(+11.6%)
Providers:6
+
+
+
+
Mistral NeMo Instruct
Avg Score:68.0%
Providers:2