Llama 4 Scout vs Qwen3.7 Flash

Comparison

As of August 20, 2026, Qwen3.7 Flash is 58% cheaper per million tokens than Llama 4 Scout. Llama 4 Scout is $0.08 / $0.30 per million input/output tokens versus Qwen3.7 Flash at $0.03 / $0.13. Sources: https://llama.meta.com/ and https://www.qwencloud.com/models/qwen3.7-flash

Sources: Meta pricing (https://llama.meta.com/); Qwen pricing (https://www.qwencloud.com/models/qwen3.7-flash)

Llama 4 Scout

Llama 4 Scout vs Qwen3.7 Flash comparison

Token pricing, specs, and benchmarks side by side

Metric

Llama 4 Scout

Qwen3.7 Flash

Provider

Llama 4 Scout vs Qwen3.7 Flash: the bottom line

Qwen3.7 Flash offers both lower pricing and stronger benchmark performance across the board, making it the clear value leader in this comparison.

View Llama 4 Scout details View Qwen3.7 Flash details

Llama 4 Scout vs Qwen3.7 Flash FAQ

Which is cheaper, Llama 4 Scout or Qwen3.7 Flash?

As of August 20, 2026, Qwen3.7 Flash is 58% cheaper on blended LLM API pricing. Qwen3.7 Flash costs $0.03 per million input tokens and $0.13 per million output tokens ($0.16 blended 1M-in + 1M-out). Llama 4 Scout costs $0.08 / $0.30 per million tokens ($0.38 blended). Sources: https://llama.meta.com/ and https://www.qwencloud.com/models/qwen3.7-flash. The cheapest LLM for your app still depends on how many output tokens you generate.

How much does Llama 4 Scout vs Qwen3.7 Flash cost per million tokens?

Llama 4 Scout Meta API pricing is $0.08 input and $0.30 output per million tokens via Meta. Qwen3.7 Flash Qwen API pricing is $0.03 input and $0.13 output per million tokens via Qwen. Use those four numbers, not ChatGPT Plus or Claude Pro subscription prices, when you are comparing APIs.

Which is better for coding, Llama 4 Scout or Qwen3.7 Flash?

Llama 4 Scout has a published LiveCodeBench score of 32.8%. Qwen3.7 Flash does not have that eval on this page yet.

What is the context window for Llama 4 Scout vs Qwen3.7 Flash?

Llama 4 Scout supports a 10M token context window, while Qwen3.7 Flash supports 1M tokens. Llama 4 Scout offers a larger context window. Filling a larger window bills more input tokens, so the cheaper-per-million model can still cost more on long documents.

Which model performs better on benchmarks, Llama 4 Scout or Qwen3.7 Flash?

Qwen3.7 Flash leads on 1 of 1 shared benchmarks versus Llama 4 Scout's 0 wins. Check the comparison table for GPQA Diamond, SWE-bench, MMLU, HLE, and the other evals we track. Token price and benchmark score together are the usual LLM comparison, not either number alone.

Is Llama 4 Scout or Qwen3.7 Flash better for production use?

Both Llama 4 Scout and Qwen3.7 Flash are production API models. For cost-sensitive production traffic, Qwen3.7 Flash has better economics on the blended 1M-in + 1M-out scale. For maximum capability, weight the benchmark table for your domain. Many production stacks route cheap models for drafts and a frontier model for the hard turn, which is usually cheaper than sending everything to the expensive API.

Can I switch between Llama 4 Scout and Qwen3.7 Flash in my app?

Yes. Call Llama 4 Scout through Meta and Qwen3.7 Flash through Qwen with separate API keys, or through a gateway that already wraps both. Keep prompts in tokens, not characters, when you estimate the invoice. AnotherWrapper templates can swap providers without rewriting auth and billing.

How accurate is this Llama 4 Scout vs Qwen3.7 Flash pricing data?

List rates are the latest published Meta API pricing and Qwen API pricing, quoted per million tokens. Official rate sheets: https://llama.meta.com/ and https://www.qwencloud.com/models/qwen3.7-flash. Prompt caching, batch APIs, and committed-use discounts can change the invoice. Benchmark scores are from official publications and independent evals, updated as new numbers land.

What is the output token limit for Llama 4 Scout and Qwen3.7 Flash?

Llama 4 Scout supports up to 10M output tokens per request, while Qwen3.7 Flash supports up to 131K output tokens. Output tokens are usually the expensive half of API pricing, so a higher max output cap is a capability, not a discount.

Which model has better throughput, Llama 4 Scout or Qwen3.7 Flash?

Llama 4 Scout has a measured throughput of approximately 76.1 tokens/second. Throughput data for Qwen3.7 Flash is not yet available. Throughput (tokens per second) and time-to-first-token are why two models with the same per-million-token price can still feel different in chat and agents.

How do I switch the models in this Llama 4 Scout vs Qwen3.7 Flash comparison?

Use the model pickers at the top of this LLM comparison. Search any model in the index and the URL updates. Open Llama 4 Scout or Qwen3.7 Flash from the sidebar for the single-model API pricing page, or go back to the LLM pricing table to sort by cheapest blended cost.

Llama 4 Scout vs Qwen3.7 Flash pricing

This comparison covers API pricing, context window, throughput, and benchmark scores. Llama 4 Scout costs $0.08/M input and $0.30/M output. Qwen3.7 Flash costs $0.03/M input and $0.13/M output.

Rank both on the LLM leaderboard, SWE-bench, and Humanity's Last Exam.