GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) vs Llama 4 Scout
Which is better for the money: GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) by OpenAI or Llama 4 Scout by Meta? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) scores 31.9 points higher (38.4 vs 6.5) but costs 72× as much to run the benchmark ($5294 vs $73.6; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) when you need intelligence above 6.5, and Llama 4 Scout when 6.5 is enough.
| Metric | GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) | Llama 4 Scout | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 38.4 | 6.5 | −83.1% Llama 4 Scout is 83.1% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $5,294.36 | $73.56 | −98.6% Llama 4 Scout is 98.6% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 40.04s | 5.00s | −87.5% Llama 4 Scout is 87.5% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $5.00 / $30.0 | $0.18 / $0.66 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
Llama 4 Scout vs GPT-5.5 (Xhigh): 83.1% less intelligence, 98.6% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 87.5% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) scores 56.00 for $4057.
- Llama 4 Scout is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Xhigh) scores 34.60 for $66.8.
GPT-5.5 (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-5-5/llama-4-scout · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gpt-5-5/llama-4-scout?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill