Llama 4 Scout vs Qwen3.7 Max
Which is better for the money: Llama 4 Scout by Meta or Qwen3.7 Max by Alibaba? 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
Qwen3.7 Max scores 23.0 points higher (29.5 vs 6.5) but costs 31× as much to run the benchmark ($2277 vs $73.6; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.7 Max when you need intelligence above 6.5, and Llama 4 Scout when 6.5 is enough.
| Metric | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen3.7 Max | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 6.5 | 29.5 | +353.8% Qwen3.7 Max is 4.5× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $73.56 | $2,277.12 | +2995.6% Qwen3.7 Max is 31× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 4.99s | 16.67s | +234.1% Qwen3.7 Max is 234.1% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.18 / $0.66 | $2.50 / $7.50 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Qwen3.7 Max vs Llama 4 Scout: 353.8% more intelligence, 2995.6% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 234.1% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Llama 4 Scout is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Xhigh) scores 34.60 for $66.8.
- Qwen3.7 Max is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 53.60 for $2172.
Llama 4 ScoutQwen3.7 MaxToday'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/llama-4-scout/qwen3-7-max · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/llama-4-scout/qwen3-7-max?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill