Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.
| Metric | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Input ($/M tokens) | $0.19 | $0.18 |
| Output ($/M tokens) | $0.68 | $0.7 |
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). Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning) leads on Intelligence Index (6.0).
Speed. On throughput, Llama 4 Scout generates tokens at 121 tok/s versus 41 tok/s — about 66% faster. On time-to-first-token, Llama 4 Scout responds in 850ms vs 3700ms, which matters most for chat-style UIs.
Provider. Meta and Alibaba sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Meta tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Alibaba 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); Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning) costs $15.90 ($191/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Llama 4 Scout ≈ $2.31/run, Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning) ≈ $2.30/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Llama 4 Scout ≈ $106/run, Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning) ≈ $106/run.
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.
Head-to-head deltas
Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks
Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning) is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $0.31/M tokens vs $0.31/M for Llama 4 Scout.
Llama 4 Scout wins 2 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning). See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.
Llama 4 Scout generates tokens faster at 121 tok/s vs 41 tok/s. Llama 4 Scout also has lower time-to-first-token (0.85s vs 3.70s).
Choose based on your priorities: Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning) 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.