Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 17, 2026
In this head-to-head showdown, GPT-5.6 Terra delivers higher overall intelligence and human-preferred responses (Elo 1,548 vs 1,412), while GPT-5.6 Terra leads in SWE-bench software engineering benchmarks (70.4%), while Llama 4 Scout is more budget-friendly at $0.3/1M per 1M output tokens. Review the complete breakdown below to determine which model best fits your performance and budget requirements.
10 benchmarks evaluated across capability, speed, and cost
OpenAI 5.6 mid tier. Official API $2/$12 per 1M after the Jul 30 2026 price cut.
Meta open-weight Llama 4 long-context sibling of Maverick. Common public API lists sit near $0.08–$0.30 / $0.30–$0.70 per 1M; we store a conservative hosted list until OpenRouter overwrites.
Currently comparing GPT-5.6 Terra vs Llama 4 Scout. Alternative family tiers available.
Δ 136 Arena Elo pts
155 tok/s
$0.3 / 1M output
Relative percentile scores computed across all active models in the benchmark catalog.
Comparing top standard models across 6 key capability dimensions. Tap any spoke or dot to inspect.
Category wins across reasoning intelligence, generation speed, and token cost.
Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy
Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness
Cost per million tokens and max context window length
| Benchmark | GPT-5.6 Terra | Llama 4 Scout | Advantage Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preference Elo | +136 | ||
| Coding Elo | +144 | ||
| LiveBench | +9.5% | ||
| SWE-bench | +18% | ||
| GPQA Diamond | +10.8% | ||
| Time to first token | +30 ms | ||
| Output speed | 128 tok/s | 155 tok/s | +27 tok/s |
| Input price | $0.1/1M | +$0.9/1M | |
| Output price | $0.3/1M | +$5.7/1M | |
| Context window | +261k |
Simulate monthly production API costs in USD (US Dollar).
Llama 4 Scout is estimated to save $117.00/month ($1,404/year).
Higher SWE-bench (70.4%).
Lower output list price ($0.3/1M).
Lower TTFT (130 ms).
Larger window (1.3M).
Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (GPT-5.6 Terra).
| Target Workload | Recommended Pick | Evaluation Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Repo / coding agents | GPT-5.6 Terra | Higher SWE-bench (70.4%). |
| High-volume chat | Llama 4 Scout | Lower output list price ($0.3/1M). |
| Voice / low-latency UI | Llama 4 Scout | Lower TTFT (130 ms). |
| Long-document RAG | Llama 4 Scout | Larger window (1.3M). |
| Screenshots / vision | GPT-5.6 Terra | Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (GPT-5.6 Terra). |
$1/$5 hosted Claude vs a cheap long-context open sibling. The alternative-to-Sonnet pair that is honest.
Terra is OpenAI’s Sonnet-class invoice. Use it when Sol is too expensive and Luna is too small.
Huge window, cheap hosted lists. The Haiku alternative that is actually open-weight.
No comments posted on this matchup yet. Be the first to share an evaluation note!
Dynamic OpenGraph banner generated at /compare/gpt-5-6-terra-vs-llama-4-scout/opengraph-image
Verified Head-to-Head Telemetry
