Model Comparison

Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Llama 4 Scout

Llama 4 Scout shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks. Llama 4 Scout is 11.9x cheaper per token.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

4 benchmarks

Claude 3.5 Haiku outperforms in 1 benchmarks (MATH), while Llama 4 Scout is better at 3 benchmarks (GPQA, MGSM, MMLU-Pro).

Llama 4 Scout shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.

Thu Apr 16 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Llama 4 Scout costs less

For input processing, Claude 3.5 Haiku ($0.80/1M tokens) is 10.0x more expensive than Llama 4 Scout ($0.08/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude 3.5 Haiku ($4.00/1M tokens) is 13.3x more expensive than Llama 4 Scout ($0.30/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude 3.5 Haiku is more expensive than Llama 4 Scout.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Thu Apr 16 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude 3.5 Haiku
Input tokens$0.80
Output tokens$4.00
Best providerAWS Bedrock
Meta
Llama 4 Scout
Input tokens$0.08
Output tokens$0.30
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Llama 4 Scout accepts 10,000,000 input tokens compared to Claude 3.5 Haiku's 200,000 tokens. Llama 4 Scout can generate longer responses up to 10,000,000 tokens, while Claude 3.5 Haiku is limited to 200,000 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude 3.5 Haiku
Input200,000 tokens
Output200,000 tokens
Meta
Llama 4 Scout
Input10,000,000 tokens
Output10,000,000 tokens
Thu Apr 16 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Llama 4 Scout supports multimodal inputs, whereas Claude 3.5 Haiku does not.

Llama 4 Scout can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude 3.5 Haiku

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Llama 4 Scout

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude 3.5 Haiku is licensed under a proprietary license, while Llama 4 Scout uses Llama 4 Community License Agreement.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Claude 3.5 Haiku

Proprietary

Closed source

Llama 4 Scout

Llama 4 Community License Agreement

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude 3.5 Haiku was released on 2024-10-22, while Llama 4 Scout was released on 2025-04-05.

Llama 4 Scout is 6 months newer than Claude 3.5 Haiku.

Claude 3.5 Haiku

Oct 22, 2024

1.5 years ago

Llama 4 Scout

Apr 5, 2025

1.0 years ago

5mo newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

Claude 3.5 Haiku is available from Bedrock, Google, Anthropic. Llama 4 Scout is available from DeepInfra, Lambda, Novita, Groq, Fireworks, Together.

Claude 3.5 Haiku

bedrock logo
AWS Bedrock
Input Price:Input: $0.80/1MOutput Price:Output: $4.00/1M
google logo
Google
Input Price:Input: $0.80/1MOutput Price:Output: $4.00/1M
anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $1.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $5.00/1M

Llama 4 Scout

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.08/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.30/1M
lambda logo
Lambda
Input Price:Input: $0.08/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.30/1M
novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $0.10/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.50/1M
groq logo
Groq
Input Price:Input: $0.11/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.34/1M
fireworks logo
Fireworks
Input Price:Input: $0.15/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.60/1M
together logo
Together
Input Price:Input: $0.18/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.59/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Anthropic
Higher MATH score (69.4% vs 50.3%)
Meta
Larger context window (10,000,000 tokens)
Supports multimodal inputs
Less expensive input tokens
Less expensive output tokens
Has open weights
Higher GPQA score (57.2% vs 41.6%)
Higher MGSM score (90.6% vs 85.6%)
Higher MMLU-Pro score (74.3% vs 65.0%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Anthropic
Claude 3.5 Haiku
Meta
Llama 4 Scout

FAQ

Common questions about Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Llama 4 Scout

Llama 4 Scout shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks. Claude 3.5 Haiku is made by Anthropic and Llama 4 Scout is made by Meta. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.
Claude 3.5 Haiku scores HumanEval: 88.1%, MGSM: 85.6%, DROP: 83.1%, MATH: 69.4%, MMLU-Pro: 65.0%. Llama 4 Scout scores DocVQA: 94.4%, MGSM: 90.6%, ChartQA: 88.8%, MMLU: 79.6%, MMLU-Pro: 74.3%.
Llama 4 Scout is 10.0x cheaper for input tokens. Claude 3.5 Haiku costs $0.80/M input and $4.00/M output via bedrock. Llama 4 Scout costs $0.08/M input and $0.30/M output via deepinfra.
Claude 3.5 Haiku supports 200K tokens and Llama 4 Scout supports 10.0M tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.
Key differences include context window (200K vs 10.0M), input pricing ($0.80 vs $0.08/M), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (Proprietary vs Llama 4 Community License Agreement). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
Claude 3.5 Haiku is developed by Anthropic and Llama 4 Scout is developed by Meta.