DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) vs Llama 4 Scout
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) by DeepSeek or Llama 4 Scout by Meta? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) scores 4.9 points higher (11.4 vs 6.5) but costs 6.3× as much to run the benchmark ($461 vs $73.6; both mid-range class). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) when you need intelligence above 6.5, and Llama 4 Scout when 6.5 is enough.
| Metric | DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) | Llama 4 Scout | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 11.4 | 6.5 | −43.0% Llama 4 Scout is 43.0% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $460.74 | $73.56 | −84.0% Llama 4 Scout is 84.0% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 19.94s | 4.97s | −75.1% Llama 4 Scout is 75.1% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $4.00 | $0.18 / $0.66 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image |
Llama 4 Scout vs DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25): 43.0% less intelligence, 84.0% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 75.1% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
- Llama 4 Scout is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Xhigh) scores 34.60 for $66.8.
DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25)Llama 4 ScoutToday's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-r1-0120/llama-4-scout · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-r1-0120/llama-4-scout?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill