Advertisement
Compare/Llama 4 Scout vs Mixtral 8x7B Instruct

Llama 4 ScoutvsMixtral 8x7B Instruct

Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.

Meta

Llama 4 Scout

Input
$0.19/M
Output
$0.68/M
Speed
121 tok/s
TTFT
0.85s
Mistral

Mixtral 8x7B Instruct

Input
$0.45/M
Output
$0.7/M
Speed
—
TTFT
—

Winner by Category

Cheaper
Llama 4 Scout
Faster (tok/s)
Llama 4 Scout
Lower Latency
Llama 4 Scout
Benchmarks (2-0)
Llama 4 Scout

Pricing Comparison

MetricLlama 4 ScoutMixtral 8x7B Instruct
Input ($/M tokens)$0.19$0.45
Output ($/M tokens)$0.68$0.7
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
Llama 4 Scout$0.26
Mixtral 8x7B Instruct$0.52

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
Llama 4 Scout
121 tok/s
Mixtral 8x7B Instruct
—
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
Llama 4 Scout
0.85s
Mixtral 8x7B Instruct
—

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. Llama 4 Scout wins the overall benchmark matchup 2–0 across 2 overlapping categories, but raw benchmark score is only one input to the decision.

Pricing. Both models sit in the budget bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.0× the per-million-token cost, Llama 4 Scout is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Llama 4 Scout makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.

Strengths. Llama 4 Scout is strongest on Coding Index (8.2), Intelligence Index (6.5). Mixtral 8x7B Instruct leads on Intelligence Index (5.1).

Speed. Speed data is incomplete for this pair; benchmark and price should decide.

Provider. Meta and Mistral sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Meta tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Mistral often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.

Workload cost. Workload scenarios (per million requests at 30M input + 15M output tokens): Llama 4 Scout costs $15.90 ($191/year); Mixtral 8x7B Instruct costs $24.00 ($288/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Llama 4 Scout ≈ $2.31/run, Mixtral 8x7B Instruct ≈ $3.65/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Llama 4 Scout ≈ $106/run, Mixtral 8x7B Instruct ≈ $160/run. Llama 4 Scout becomes more attractive at higher volume — the absolute per-token pricing difference compounds when you ship at scale.

Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
6.55.1
Coding Index
8.2—
Math Index
——
GPQA Diamond
——
MMLU-Pro
——
LiveCodeBench
——
AIME 2025
——
MATH-500
——
Humanity's Last Exam
——
SciCode
——
IFBench
——
TerminalBench
——
Llama 4 Scout2 wins
0 winsMixtral 8x7B Instruct

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, Llama 4 Scout or Mixtral 8x7B Instruct?

Llama 4 Scout is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $0.31/M tokens vs $0.51/M for Mixtral 8x7B Instruct.

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

Llama 4 Scout wins 2 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Mixtral 8x7B Instruct. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

Llama 4 Scout generates tokens faster at 121 tok/s vs — tok/s. Llama 4 Scout also has lower time-to-first-token (0.85s vs —s).

When should I use Llama 4 Scout vs Mixtral 8x7B Instruct?

Choose based on your priorities: Llama 4 Scout for lower cost, Llama 4 Scout for stronger benchmark performance, and Llama 4 Scout for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.