GPT-5.4 nano (Xhigh) vs Llama 4 Scout
Which is better for the money: GPT-5.4 nano (Xhigh) by OpenAI or Llama 4 Scout by Meta? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
GPT-5.4 nano (Xhigh) scores 14.2 points higher (20.7 vs 6.5) but costs 4.5× as much to run the benchmark ($331 vs $73.6; both mid-range class). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick GPT-5.4 nano (Xhigh) when you need intelligence above 6.5, and Llama 4 Scout when 6.5 is enough.
| Metric | GPT-5.4 nano (Xhigh) | Llama 4 Scout | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 20.7 | 6.5 | −68.6% Llama 4 Scout is 68.6% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $331.24 | $73.56 | −77.8% Llama 4 Scout is 77.8% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 53.29s | 5.16s | −90.3% Llama 4 Scout is 90.3% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.20 / $1.25 | $0.18 / $0.66 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
Llama 4 Scout vs GPT-5.4 nano (Xhigh): 68.6% less intelligence, 77.8% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 90.3% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GPT-5.4 nano (Xhigh) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
- Llama 4 Scout is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Xhigh) scores 34.60 for $66.8.
GPT-5.4 nano (Xhigh)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/gpt-5-4-nano/llama-4-scout · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gpt-5-4-nano/llama-4-scout?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill