Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 16, 2026
In this head-to-head showdown, Kimi K2 delivers higher overall intelligence and human-preferred responses (Elo 1,465 vs 1,412), while Kimi K2 leads in SWE-bench software engineering benchmarks (65.8%), 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 direct benchmark disciplines evaluated across capability, speed, and cost
Moonshot foundation model with strong native bilingual reasoning and 65.8% SWE-bench Verified coding baseline.
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 Kimi K2 vs Llama 4 Scout. Alternative family tiers available.
Δ 53 Arena Elo pts
155 tok/s
$0.3 / 1M output
Relative percentile scores computed across all active models in the benchmark catalog.
Comparing top Western standard models with China's leading frontier rival across 6 skill 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 | Kimi K2 | Llama 4 Scout | Advantage Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preference Elo | +53 | ||
| Coding Elo | +72 | ||
| LiveBench | +3.2% | ||
| SWE-bench | +13.4% | ||
| GPQA Diamond | +5.3% | ||
| Time to first token | +110 ms | ||
| Output speed | 85 tok/s | 155 tok/s | +70 tok/s |
| Input price | $0.35/1M | $0.08/1M | +$0.27/1M |
| Output price | $1.4/1M | +$1.1/1M | |
| Context window | +9.9M |
Simulate monthly production API costs in USD (US Dollar).
Llama 4 Scout is estimated to save $25.95/month ($311/year).
Higher SWE-bench (65.8%).
Lower output list price ($0.3/1M).
Lower TTFT (130 ms).
Larger window (10M).
Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (Kimi K2).
| Target Workload | Recommended Pick | Evaluation Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Repo / coding agents | Kimi K2 | Higher SWE-bench (65.8%). |
| 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 (10M). |
| Screenshots / vision | Kimi K2 | Both accept images. Defaulting to the higher-Elo side (Kimi K2). |
$1/$5 hosted Claude vs a cheap long-context open sibling. The alternative-to-Sonnet pair that is honest.
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/kimi-k2-vs-llama-4-scout/opengraph-image
Verified Head-to-Head Telemetry