Llama 4 Scout vs Codestral
Side-by-side comparison of pricing and capabilities
Input Price Comparison
| Attribute | Llama 4 Scout | Codestral |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Mistral AI |
| Input Price | $0.17 /1M tokens | $0.3 /1M tokens |
| Output Price | $0.6 /1M tokens | $0.9 /1M tokens |
| Cached Input | $0.017 /1M tokens | $0.030 /1M tokens |
| Context Window | 10.0M | 256K |
| Type | chat | chat |
| Status | current | current |
Capability Comparison
| Capability | Llama 4 Scout | Codestral |
|---|---|---|
| coding | ||
| vision |
Which should you choose?
Budget-conscious: Llama 4 Scout is 43% cheaper on input tokens ($0.17 vs $0.3 per 1M tokens).
Context-heavy tasks: Llama 4 Scout offers a larger context window (10.0M vs 256K), making it better for long documents or conversations.
Capability fit: Llama 4 Scout supports 2 capabilities (coding, vision), while Codestral supports 1 (coding).
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper: Llama 4 Scout or Codestral?
Llama 4 Scout costs $0.17/1M input vs Codestral at $0.3/1M input. Llama 4 Scout is 43% cheaper on input tokens.
How do output prices compare between Llama 4 Scout and Codestral?
Llama 4 Scout output: $0.6/1M, Codestral output: $0.9/1M. Llama 4 Scout is more economical for generation-heavy workloads.
What is Llama 4 Scout best used for?
Llama 4 Scout is best for budget-conscious applications, high-volume chatbots, and tasks where cost efficiency is the primary concern.
What is Codestral best used for?
Codestral is suited for complex reasoning, analysis, and tasks that benefit from its coding capabilities.