Model Comparison

Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning) vs Llama 4 Scout

Google vs Meta

Side-by-side benchmarks, pricing, and value analysis. See which model costs less per intelligence point.

Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning) (Google) and Llama 4 Scout (Meta) are both large language models available via API. On list price, Llama 4 Scout is cheaper, while Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning) scores higher on benchmarks. When you factor in token efficiency — how many tokens each model needs for the same task — Llama 4 Scout delivers more intelligence per dollar. List prices can be misleading because different models consume different numbers of tokens for the same work. The effective costs below adjust for this using benchmark data, so you can compare what equivalent work actually costs.

Benchmark Scores

Intelligence Index

Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning) 20.5
Llama 4 Scout 13.5

MMLU-Pro

Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning) 0.8
Llama 4 Scout 0.8

GPQA

Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning) 0.7
Llama 4 Scout 0.6

AIME

Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning) 0.5
Llama 4 Scout 0.3

Performance

Metric Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning) Llama 4 Scout Gap
Output tokens/sec 243.7 157.4 1.5x
Time to first token 0.41s 0.47s 1.1x
Context window 8,000 128,000 16.0x

Pricing per 1M Tokens

Metric Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning) Llama 4 Scout Gap
Input price / 1M tokens $0.3 $0.18 1.7x
Output price / 1M tokens $2.5 $0.625 4.0x
Cache hit price / 1M tokens $0.025 $0.125 5.0x

Effective Cost per 1M Tokens

List prices adjusted for token efficiency. Different models use different numbers of tokens for the same task — these prices reflect what equivalent work actually costs.

Metric Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning) Llama 4 Scout Gap
Input (adjusted) / 1M $0.2711 $0.1992 1.4x
Output (adjusted) / 1M $39.9931 $0.0391 1022.8x
Input token ratio 0.90x 1.11x
Output token ratio 16.00x 0.06x

Intelligence vs Price

Higher is smarter, further left is cheaper. Top-left is best value. Prices adjusted for token efficiency.

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 $0.2 $0.5 $1 $2 $5 $10 $20 Effective $/1M tokens (input + output) Intelligence Index Claude 4.5 Sonn... Gemini 2.5 Pro Grok 3 mini Rea... GPT-4.1 Claude 4 Sonnet... GPT-4.1 mini DeepSeek R1 052... Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning) Llama 4 Scout
Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning) Llama 4 Scout Other models

Value Analysis

Cheaper

Llama 4 Scout

Higher Benchmarks

Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning)

Better Value ($/IQ point)

Llama 4 Scout

Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning)

$1.96 / IQ point

Llama 4 Scout

$0.02 / IQ point

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning) or Llama 4 Scout?

Llama 4 Scout is cheaper on list price. Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning) costs $0.3/M input and $2.5/M output tokens. Llama 4 Scout costs $0.18/M input and $0.625/M output tokens. On combined list price, Llama 4 Scout is 3.5x cheaper than Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning). However, list prices alone can be misleading because different models use different numbers of tokens for the same task. Check the effective cost comparison above, which adjusts for token efficiency using benchmark data.

Which scores higher on benchmarks, Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning) or Llama 4 Scout?

Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning) has a higher Intelligence Index (20.5) compared to Llama 4 Scout (13.5). The Intelligence Index is a composite score from three industry-standard benchmarks: MMLU-Pro (general knowledge and reasoning), GPQA (graduate-level science), and AIME (mathematical problem solving). A higher score means the model produces more accurate and capable responses across a broad range of tasks. This composite approach is more reliable than any single benchmark because it measures different types of capability.

Which model is better value for money, Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning) or Llama 4 Scout?

Llama 4 Scout offers better value at $0.02 per intelligence point compared to Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning) at $1.96 per intelligence point. Cost per intelligence point measures how much you pay for each unit of benchmark performance, calculated as the combined token cost divided by the Intelligence Index score. When token efficiency data is available, this calculation uses effective prices (adjusted for the fact that different models consume different numbers of tokens for the same task) rather than raw list prices. A lower cost per intelligence point means you get more capability per dollar.

Which has a larger context window, Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning) or Llama 4 Scout?

Llama 4 Scout supports 128,000 tokens compared to Gemini 2.5 Flash (Non-reasoning) with 8,000 tokens. The context window determines how much text (including your prompt, conversation history, and documents) the model can process in a single request. A larger context window is important for tasks like document summarization, long-form analysis, and multi-turn conversations with extensive history. If your use case involves processing large inputs, the context window may be a deciding factor.

Related Comparisons

Stop guessing. Start measuring.

Create an account, install the SDK, and see your first margin data in minutes.

See My Margin Data

No credit card required