Model Comparison

Llama 4 Scout vs Qwen2.5-Coder 32B InstructWhich is better in 2026?

Llama 4 Scout has a slight edge in benchmark performance. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is 1.5x cheaper per token.

Verdict: Llama 4 Scout vs Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct — which is better?

Llama 4 Scout (by Meta) and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct (by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team) are two of the AI models people compare most. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.

Llama 4 Scout outperforms in 3 benchmarks (LiveCodeBench, MMLU, MMLU-Pro), while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is better at 2 benchmarks (MATH, MBPP). Llama 4 Scout has a slight edge in benchmark performance.

On price, Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is roughly 1.5x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Llama 4 Scout also accepts a larger context window (10,000,000 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Choose Llama 4 Scout if…

  • you want the strongest raw capability — it leads on 3 of 5 shared benchmarks
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 10,000,000 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Apr 2025

Choose Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct if…

  • cost matters — it's about 1.5x cheaper per token

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

5 benchmarks

Llama 4 Scout outperforms in 3 benchmarks (LiveCodeBench, MMLU, MMLU-Pro), while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is better at 2 benchmarks (MATH, MBPP).

Llama 4 Scout has a slight edge in benchmark performance.

Sun Jul 26 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct costs less

For input processing, Llama 4 Scout ($0.08/1M tokens) is 1.1x cheaper than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct ($0.09/1M tokens).

For output processing, Llama 4 Scout ($0.30/1M tokens) is 3.3x more expensive than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct ($0.09/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Llama 4 Scout is more expensive than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Sun Jul 26 2026 • llm-stats.com
Meta
Llama 4 Scout
Input tokens$0.08
Output tokens$0.30
Best providerDeepinfra
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
Input tokens$0.09
Output tokens$0.09
Best providerLambda
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

77.0B diff

Llama 4 Scout has 77.0B more parameters than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct, making it 240.6% larger.

Meta
Llama 4 Scout
109.0Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
32.0Bparameters
109.0B
Llama 4 Scout
32.0B
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Llama 4 Scout accepts 10,000,000 input tokens compared to Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. Llama 4 Scout can generate longer responses up to 10,000,000 tokens, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is limited to 128,000 tokens.

Meta
Llama 4 Scout
Input10,000,000 tokens
Output10,000,000 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Sun Jul 26 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Llama 4 Scout supports multimodal inputs, whereas Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct does not.

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

Llama 4 Scout

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Llama 4 Scout is licensed under Llama 4 Community License Agreement, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct uses Apache 2.0.

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

Llama 4 Scout

Llama 4 Community License Agreement

Open weights

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Llama 4 Scout was released on 2025-04-05, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct was released on 2024-09-19.

Llama 4 Scout is 7 months newer than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.

Llama 4 Scout

Apr 5, 2025

1.3 years ago

6mo newer
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Sep 19, 2024

1.8 years ago

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

Llama 4 Scout is available from DeepInfra, Lambda, Novita, Groq, Fireworks, Together. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is available from Lambda, DeepInfra, Hyperbolic, Fireworks.

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

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

lambda logo
Lambda
Input Price:Input: $0.09/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.09/1M
deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.18/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.18/1M
hyperbolic logo
Hyperbolic
Input Price:Input: $0.20/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.20/1M
fireworks logo
Fireworks
Input Price:Input: $0.89/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.89/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Meta
Larger context window (10,000,000 tokens)
Supports multimodal inputs
Less expensive input tokens
Higher LiveCodeBench score (32.8% vs 31.4%)
Higher MMLU score (79.6% vs 75.1%)
Higher MMLU-Pro score (74.3% vs 50.4%)
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Less expensive output tokens
Higher MATH score (57.2% vs 50.3%)
Higher MBPP score (90.2% vs 67.8%)

Detailed Comparison

Interactive Arena

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Llama 4 Scout and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Llama 4 Scout
✓ Preferred
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
Open in Playground
AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Meta
Llama 4 Scout
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

FAQ

Common questions about Llama 4 Scout vs Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.

Which is better, Llama 4 Scout or Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct?

Llama 4 Scout has a slight edge in benchmark performance. Llama 4 Scout is made by Meta and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.

How does Llama 4 Scout compare to Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct in benchmarks?

Llama 4 Scout scores DocVQA: 94.4%, MGSM: 90.6%, ChartQA: 88.8%, MMLU: 79.6%, MMLU-Pro: 74.3%. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct scores HumanEval: 92.7%, GSM8k: 91.1%, MBPP: 90.2%, HellaSwag: 83.0%, Winogrande: 80.8%.

Is Llama 4 Scout cheaper than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct?

Llama 4 Scout is 1.1x cheaper for input tokens. Llama 4 Scout costs $0.08/M input and $0.30/M output via deepinfra. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct costs $0.09/M input and $0.09/M output via lambda.

What are the context window sizes for Llama 4 Scout and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct?

Llama 4 Scout supports 10.0M tokens and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct supports 128K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Llama 4 Scout and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct?

Key differences include context window (10.0M vs 128K), input pricing ($0.08 vs $0.09/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Llama 4 Community License Agreement vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Llama 4 Scout and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct?

Llama 4 Scout is developed by Meta and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Related comparisons