Advertisement
Compare/Qwen3 VL 8B Instruct vs Llama 4 Scout

Qwen3 VL 8B InstructvsLlama 4 Scout

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

Alibaba

Qwen3 VL 8B Instruct

Input
$0.18/M
Output
$0.7/M
Speed
121 tok/s
TTFT
2.21s
Meta

Llama 4 Scout

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

Winner by Category

Cheaper
Qwen3 VL 8B Instruct
Faster (tok/s)
Llama 4 Scout
Lower Latency
Llama 4 Scout
Benchmarks (1-1)
Tie

Pricing Comparison

MetricQwen3 VL 8B InstructLlama 4 Scout
Input ($/M tokens)$0.18$0.19
Output ($/M tokens)$0.7$0.68
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
Qwen3 VL 8B Instruct$0.25
Llama 4 Scout$0.26

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
Qwen3 VL 8B Instruct
121 tok/s
Llama 4 Scout
121 tok/s
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
Qwen3 VL 8B Instruct
2.21s
Llama 4 Scout
0.85s

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. Qwen3 VL 8B Instruct and Llama 4 Scout split the benchmark comparison evenly at 1–1. The tiebreaker here is price, speed, and what you actually run them on.

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. Qwen3 VL 8B Instruct is strongest on Intelligence Index (7.3). Llama 4 Scout leads on Coding Index (8.2), Intelligence Index (6.5).

Speed. Throughput is comparable — 121 tok/s vs 121 tok/s — so generation speed shouldn't drive your choice here. Look at the per-benchmark wins instead.

Provider. Alibaba and Meta sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Alibaba tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Meta 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): Qwen3 VL 8B Instruct costs $15.90 ($191/year); Llama 4 Scout costs $15.90 ($191/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Qwen3 VL 8B Instruct ≈ $2.30/run, Llama 4 Scout ≈ $2.31/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Qwen3 VL 8B Instruct ≈ $106/run, Llama 4 Scout ≈ $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

  • Benchmark wins tie exactly at 1–1. The tiebreaker on raw benchmark parity will be price, speed, or capability coverage.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
7.36.5
Coding Index
—8.2
Math Index
——
GPQA Diamond
——
MMLU-Pro
——
LiveCodeBench
——
AIME 2025
——
MATH-500
——
Humanity's Last Exam
——
SciCode
——
IFBench
——
TerminalBench
——
Qwen3 VL 8B Instruct1 wins
1 winsLlama 4 Scout

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, Qwen3 VL 8B Instruct or Llama 4 Scout?

Qwen3 VL 8B Instruct is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $0.31/M tokens vs $0.31/M for Llama 4 Scout.

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

It's a tie — both models win 1 benchmarks each across 12 evaluated categories. 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 121 tok/s. However, Llama 4 Scout has lower time-to-first-token (0.85s vs 2.21s).

When should I use Qwen3 VL 8B Instruct vs Llama 4 Scout?

Choose based on your priorities: Qwen3 VL 8B Instruct for lower cost, both perform similarly on benchmarks, and Llama 4 Scout for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.