GPT-6 Astra (Medium) vs Llama 4 Scout
Which is better for the money: GPT-6 Astra (Medium) 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-6 Astra (Medium) scores 43.1 points higher (49.6 vs 6.5) but costs 33× as much to run the benchmark ($2434 vs $73.6; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick GPT-6 Astra (Medium) when you need intelligence above 6.5, and Llama 4 Scout when 6.5 is enough.
| Metric | GPT-6 Astra (Medium) | Llama 4 Scout | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 49.6 | 6.5 | −86.9% Llama 4 Scout is 86.9% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,434.12 | $73.56 | −97.0% Llama 4 Scout is 97.0% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 13.89s | 4.99s | −64.1% Llama 4 Scout is 64.1% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $10.0 / $50.0 | $0.18 / $0.66 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
Llama 4 Scout vs GPT-6 Astra (Medium): 86.9% less intelligence, 97.0% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 64.1% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GPT-6 Astra (Medium) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 53.60 for $2172.
- 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 Astra (Medium)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-astra-medium/llama-4-scout · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gpt-6-astra-medium/llama-4-scout?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill