← Back to Models
⚖️

Llama 3.3vsLlama 4 Scout

Meta vs Meta — Side-by-side model comparison

Llama 4 Scout leads 3/5 categories

Head-to-Head Comparison

MetricLlama 3.3Llama 4 Scout
Provider
Meta
Arena Rank
#13
#12
Context Window
128K
10M
Input Pricing
Free/1M tokens
Free/1M tokens
Output Pricing
Free/1M tokens
Free/1M tokens
Parameters
70B
109B (17B active)
Open Source
Yes
Yes
Best For
General purpose, multilingual, coding
Long context, open source, multilingual
Release Date
Dec 6, 2024
Apr 5, 2025

Llama 3.3

Llama 3.3 is Meta's most efficient high-performance model, delivering capability comparable to the much larger Llama 3.1 405B while using only 70 billion parameters. This dramatic efficiency gain means organizations can deploy near-frontier AI capabilities on significantly less hardware. The model supports a 128K context window, strong multilingual performance across dozens of languages, and excellent coding and reasoning abilities. As a fully open-source model, it can be self-hosted, fine-tuned for specific domains, and deployed without API costs. Llama 3.3 has become the de facto standard for organizations that need powerful AI but want to maintain control over their infrastructure and data. It's widely available through cloud providers and can run on consumer GPUs.

Llama 4 Scout

Llama 4 Scout is Meta's efficient mixture-of-experts model featuring an industry-leading 10 million token context window — the largest of any production model. Despite its enormous context capacity, Scout uses an efficient MoE architecture that keeps inference costs manageable. The model excels at processing extremely large documents, entire codebases, and long conversation histories. As a fully open-source model, it can be self-hosted and fine-tuned. Scout's combination of massive context and open weights makes it uniquely suited for enterprise document processing, legal review, and research applications requiring analysis of very large text corpora.

View Meta profile →

Key Differences: Llama 3.3 vs Llama 4 Scout

1

Llama 4 Scout ranks higher in arena benchmarks (#12) indicating stronger overall performance.

2

Llama 4 Scout supports a larger context window (10M), allowing it to process longer documents in a single request.

3

Llama 3.3 has 70B parameters vs Llama 4 Scout's 109B (17B active), which affects inference speed and capability.

L

When to use Llama 3.3

  • +Your use case involves general purpose, multilingual, coding
View full Llama 3.3 specs →
L

When to use Llama 4 Scout

  • +You need the highest quality output based on arena rankings
  • +You need to process long documents (10M context)
  • +Your use case involves long context, open source, multilingual
View full Llama 4 Scout specs →

Cost Analysis

Both models have similar pricing. For a typical enterprise workload processing 100M tokens per month:

Llama 3.3 monthly cost

$0

100M tokens/mo (50/50 in/out)

Llama 4 Scout monthly cost

$0

100M tokens/mo (50/50 in/out)

The Verdict

Llama 4 Scout wins our head-to-head comparison with 3 out of 5 category wins. It's the stronger choice for long context, open source, multilingual, though Llama 3.3 holds an edge in general purpose, multilingual, coding.

Last compared: March 2026 · Data sourced from public benchmarks and official pricing pages

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better, Llama 3.3 or Llama 4 Scout?
In our head-to-head comparison, Llama 4 Scout leads in 3 out of 5 categories (arena rank, context window, input pricing, output pricing, and parameters). Llama 4 Scout excels at long context, open source, multilingual, while Llama 3.3 is better suited for general purpose, multilingual, coding. The best choice depends on your specific requirements, budget, and use case.
How does Llama 3.3 pricing compare to Llama 4 Scout?
Llama 3.3 charges Free per 1M input tokens and Free per 1M output tokens. Llama 4 Scout charges Free per 1M input tokens and Free per 1M output tokens. For high-volume production workloads, the pricing difference can significantly impact total cost of ownership.
What is the context window difference between Llama 3.3 and Llama 4 Scout?
Llama 3.3 supports a 128K token context window, while Llama 4 Scout supports 10M tokens. Llama 4 Scout can process longer documents, codebases, and conversations in a single request. Context window size matters most for tasks involving long documents, large codebases, or extended conversations.
Can I use Llama 3.3 or Llama 4 Scout for free?
Llama 3.3 is available for free (open-source). Llama 4 Scout is available for free (open-source). Open-source models can be self-hosted for free but require your own GPU infrastructure.
Which model has better benchmarks, Llama 3.3 or Llama 4 Scout?
Llama 3.3 holds arena rank #13, while Llama 4 Scout holds rank #12. Llama 4 Scout performs better in overall arena benchmarks, which aggregate human preference ratings across coding, reasoning, and general tasks. Note that benchmarks don't capture every use case — we recommend testing both models on your specific tasks.
Is Llama 3.3 or Llama 4 Scout better for coding?
Llama 3.3 is specifically optimized for coding tasks. Llama 4 Scout's primary strength is long context, open source, multilingual. For coding specifically, arena rank and code-specific benchmarks are the best indicators of performance.