ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct vs Mistral Small 3

Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct comes out ahead, 51 to 39 on our weighted score, though Mistral Small 3 is 4.8× cheaper per token.

  1. Our pick

    Meta

    Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct

    Released Apr 5, 2025

    51/100
    • ECI129.6
    • Price$0.17 / $0.59
    • Context10M
  2. Mistral AI

    Mistral Small 3

    Released Jan 30, 2025

    39/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.05 / $0.08
    • Context33K
  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 51/100 against Mistral Small 3 (39). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. Mistral Small 3 wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%. Capability uses the average of shared benchmarks (GPQA Diamond and OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025), because Mistral Small 3 has no Capabilities Index score yet.

  • CapabilityLlama 4 Scout 17B InstructShared benchmarks: Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct 29.8% · Mistral Small 3 27.0%
  • Lowest priceMistral Small 3Mistral Small 3 $0.058 · Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct $0.275 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextLlama 4 Scout 17B InstructLlama 4 Scout 17B Instruct 10,000,000 · Mistral Small 3 32,768 tokens
  • Widest inputsLlama 4 Scout 17B InstructLlama 4 Scout 17B Instruct: Text, Images · Mistral Small 3: Text
  • Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
How the score is built
MeasureWeightLlama 4 Scout 17B InstructMistral Small 3
CapabilityShared benchmarks50%3027
Price25%73100
Inputs & features15%500
Context window10%1000
Overall100%51/10039/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct vs Mistral Small 3 specifications side by side
SpecificationLlama 4 Scout 17B InstructMetaMistral Small 3Mistral AI
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)129.6—
ECI rank#138 of 165—
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions51.8% (best)47.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics7.8% (best)6.7%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.17$0.05 (best)
Output$0.59$0.08 (best)
Cached input——
Blended (3:1)$0.275$0.058 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 13 providersMedian of 6 providers
Limits
Context window10,000,000 tokens (best)32,768 tokens
Max output16,384 tokens16,384 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesNo
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningNoNo
Tool callingYesNo
Structured outputNoNo
Availability
WeightsOpenOpen
API model ID——
API providers13 (best)6
ReleasedApr 5, 2025Jan 30, 2025
Knowledge cutoffAug 2024Oct 31, 2023
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.

  • Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct$2.88
  • Mistral Small 3$0.66
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct or Mistral Small 3?

Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct is the better all-round choice, scoring 51/100 against Mistral Small 3 (39). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. Mistral Small 3 wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%. Capability uses the average of shared benchmarks (GPQA Diamond and OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025), because Mistral Small 3 has no Capabilities Index score yet.

Which is cheaper, Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct or Mistral Small 3?

Mistral Small 3 is cheaper at $0.05 input / $0.08 output per million tokens (median across 6 API providers). Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct costs $0.17 input / $0.59 output per million tokens (median across 13 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.058 per million tokens for Mistral Small 3 versus $0.275 for Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct (4.8× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Not every model here has a Capabilities Index score, so we compare the average of shared benchmarks (GPQA Diamond and OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025): Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct 29.8% and Mistral Small 3 27.0%. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct 51.8%, Mistral Small 3 47.3%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct 7.8%, Mistral Small 3 6.7%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct and Mistral Small 3 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. Note that Mistral Small 3 does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.

Which has the bigger context window?

Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct has the largest context window at 10,000,000 tokens, against 32,768 for Mistral Small 3. Maximum output per response: Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct up to 16,384, Mistral Small 3 up to 16,384 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct accepts text and images; Mistral Small 3 accepts text. Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Yes, both publish their weights, so you can self-host them.

Which is newer?

Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct is the newest, released Apr 5, 2025. Mistral Small 3 came out Jan 30, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Llama 4 Scout 17B Instruct Aug 2024, Mistral Small 3 Oct 31, 2023.

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 Nov 2, 2026.