GPT-6.1 Terra (Non-reasoning) vs Llama 4 Scout
Which is better for the money: GPT-6.1 Terra (Non-reasoning) by OpenAI or Llama 4 Scout by Meta? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-27.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
GPT-6.1 Terra (Non-reasoning) scores 27.0 points higher (33.5 vs 6.5) but costs 2.1× as much to run the benchmark ($154 vs $73.6; both mid-range class). Pick GPT-6.1 Terra (Non-reasoning) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Llama 4 Scout.
| Metric | GPT-6.1 Terra (Non-reasoning) | Llama 4 Scout | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 33.5 | 6.5 | −80.6% Llama 4 Scout is 80.6% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $153.58 | $73.56 | −52.1% Llama 4 Scout is 52.1% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 6.76s | 6.47s | −4.3% Llama 4 Scout is 4.3% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.00 / $5.00 | $0.18 / $0.66 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
Llama 4 Scout vs GPT-6.1 Terra (Non-reasoning): 80.6% less intelligence, 52.1% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 4.3% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GPT-6.1 Terra (Non-reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Max) scores 38.10 for $122.
- Llama 4 Scout is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Xhigh) scores 34.60 for $66.8.
GPT-6.1 Terra (Non-reasoning)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-6-1-terra-non-reasoning/llama-4-scout · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gpt-6-1-terra-non-reasoning/llama-4-scout?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill