Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 17, 2026
In this head-to-head showdown, Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct delivers higher overall intelligence and human-preferred responses (Elo 1,425 vs 1,412), while Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct leads in SWE-bench software engineering benchmarks (65.2%), 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.
7 direct benchmark disciplines evaluated across capability, speed, and cost
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.
Auto-discovered from OpenRouter (qwen/qwen-2.5-coder-32b-instruct). Preview until a second source matches.
Currently comparing Llama 4 Scout vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct. Alternative family tiers available.
Δ 13 Arena Elo pts
No latency data
$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 | Llama 4 Scout | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct | Advantage Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preference Elo | +13 | ||
| Coding Elo | +97 | ||
| LiveBench | +5.2% | ||
| SWE-bench | +12.8% | ||
| GPQA Diamond | — | — | |
| Time to first token | — | — | |
| Output speed | 155 tok/s | — | — |
| Input price | $0.1/1M | $0.66/1M | +$0.56/1M |
| Output price | $0.3/1M | +$0.7/1M | |
| Context window | +1.3M |
Simulate monthly production API costs in USD (US Dollar).
Llama 4 Scout is estimated to save $30.10/month ($361/year).
Higher SWE-bench (65.2%).
Lower output list price ($0.3/1M).
Need TTFT on both sides.
Larger window (1.3M).
Llama 4 Scout is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.
| Target Workload | Recommended Pick | Evaluation Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Repo / coding agents | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct | Higher SWE-bench (65.2%). |
| High-volume chat | Llama 4 Scout | Lower output list price ($0.3/1M). |
| Voice / low-latency UI | insufficient data | Need TTFT on both sides. |
| Long-document RAG | Llama 4 Scout | Larger window (1.3M). |
| Screenshots / vision | Llama 4 Scout | Llama 4 Scout is the side marked multimodal in the catalog. |
$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/llama-4-scout-vs-qwen-2-5-coder-32b-instruct/opengraph-image
Verified Head-to-Head Telemetry
