ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Claude Haiku 3.5 vs Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct

Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct comes out ahead, 58 to 49 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Anthropic

    Claude Haiku 3.5

    Released Oct 22, 2024

    49/100
    • ECI127.2
    • Price—
    • Context200K
    Full specs Remove Claude Haiku 3.5
  2. Our pick

    Meta

    Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct

    Released Apr 5, 2025

    58/100
    • ECI129.7
    • Price$0.225 / $0.69
    • Context10M
    Full specs Remove Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct is our pick

Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct is the better all-round choice, scoring 58/100 against Claude Haiku 3.5 (49). It leads on capability and context window. Claude Haiku 3.5 wins on inputs & features. The score weighs capability 67%, inputs & features 20%, context window 13%.

  • CapabilityLlama 4 Scout 17B InstructCapabilities Index (ECI): Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct 129.7 · Claude Haiku 3.5 127.2
  • Lowest priceLlama 4 Scout 17B InstructLlama 4 Scout 17B Instruct $0.341 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · Claude Haiku 3.5 unpriced
  • Longest contextLlama 4 Scout 17B InstructLlama 4 Scout 17B Instruct 10,000,000 · Claude Haiku 3.5 200,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsClaude Haiku 3.5Claude Haiku 3.5: Text, Images, PDFs · Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct: Text, Images
  • Self-hostingLlama 4 Scout 17B InstructPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightClaude Haiku 3.5Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)67%4952
Inputs & features20%6050
Context window13%32100
Overall100%49/10058/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: price. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Claude Haiku 3.5 vs Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct specifications side by side
SpecificationClaude Haiku 3.5AnthropicLlama 4 Scout 17B InstructMeta
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)127.2129.7 (best)
ECI rank#134 of 148#126 of 148 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions38.1%51.8% (best)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics4.3%7.8% (best)
Price per million tokens
Input—$0.225
Output—$0.69
Cached input——
Blended (3:1)—$0.341
Long-context rate—Same rate
Price source—Median of 4 providers
Limits
Context window200,000 tokens10,000,000 tokens (best)
Max output8,192 tokens16,384 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsYesNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningNoNo
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpen
API model ID——
API providers—4
ReleasedOct 22, 2024Apr 5, 2025
Knowledge cutoffJul 31, 2024Aug 2024
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Claude Haiku 3.5—
  • Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct$3.63
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Claude Haiku 3.5 or Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct?

Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct is the better all-round choice, scoring 58/100 against Claude Haiku 3.5 (49). It leads on capability and context window. Claude Haiku 3.5 wins on inputs & features. The score weighs capability 67%, inputs & features 20%, context window 13%.

Which is cheaper, Claude Haiku 3.5 or Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct?

Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct is cheaper at $0.225 input / $0.69 output per million tokens (median across 4 API providers). . At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.341 per million tokens for Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct versus . Claude Haiku 3.5 has no published per-token price.

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct 129.7 (#126 of 148) and Claude Haiku 3.5 127.2 (#134 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (124.8–131.4 vs 120.7–129.7), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct 51.8%, Claude Haiku 3.5 38.1%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct 7.8%, Claude Haiku 3.5 4.3%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Claude Haiku 3.5 and Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct has the largest context window at 10,000,000 tokens, against 200,000 for Claude Haiku 3.5. Maximum output per response: Claude Haiku 3.5 up to 8,192, Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct up to 16,384 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Claude Haiku 3.5 accepts text, images and PDFs; Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct accepts text and images. Claude Haiku 3.5 handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Claude Haiku 3.5 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct is the newest, released Apr 5, 2025. Claude Haiku 3.5 came out Oct 22, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Haiku 3.5 Jul 31, 2024, Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct Aug 2024.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons