Llama 4 Scout vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Which is better for the money: Llama 4 Scout by Meta or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 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
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next scores 33.3 points higher (39.8 vs 6.5) but costs 4.9× as much to run the benchmark ($363 vs $73.6; both mid-range class). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8-Flash-Next when you need intelligence above 6.5, and Llama 4 Scout when 6.5 is enough.
| Metric | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 6.5 | 39.8 | +512.3% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 6.1× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $73.56 | $362.72 | +393.1% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 4.9× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 4.99s | 50.49s | +911.8% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 911.8% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.18 / $0.66 | $0.15 / $0.47 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs Llama 4 Scout: 512.3% more intelligence, 393.1% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 911.8% 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.
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
Llama 4 ScoutQwen3.8-Flash-NextToday'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/qwen3-8-flash-next · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/llama-4-scout/qwen3-8-flash-next?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill