Pick Grok Code Fast 1 for fast, cheap agentic coding at $0.20/$1.50 or low-latency code generation and terminal tasks. Pick Llama 4 Scout for largest advertised context (10m) or open weights, single-gpu friendly. Choose Llama 4 Scout if you need self-hosting or data privacy; Grok Code Fast 1 if you want a managed API.
Grok Code Fast 1 (xAI) and Llama 4 Scout (Meta) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. Grok Code Fast 1 is xAI's speed-tier coding model at $0.20/$1.50 with a 256K window — cheap, fast agentic code over frontier quality. Llama 4 Scout is the 10M-token open-weight giant — enormous on paper, but usable recall is far smaller. They diverge most on price, context window and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences
Cost model: Llama 4 Scout ships open weights you can self-host (hardware cost only, no per-token fee), while Grok Code Fast 1 is API-metered at $0.2/$1.5 per 1M tokens. Your choice depends on whether you want zero marginal cost at the price of running infrastructure.
Context window: Llama 4 Scout holds 39× more — 10M (~15,000 pages) vs 256K (~384 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
Recency: Grok Code Fast 1 is the newer model by about 5 months (released August 28, 2025), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Specifications
Spec
Grok Code Fast 1
Llama 4 Scout
Provider
xAI (US)
Meta (US)
Released
August 28, 2025
April 2025
Context window
256K (~384 pages)
10M (~15,000 pages)
Price (in/out)
$0.2/$1.5 per 1M tokens
Open weight (self-host / free)
Open weight?
No — API only
Yes — self-hostable
Modalities
text, code
text, image, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
15%
Who wins what
Fast, cheap agentic coding at $0.20/$1.50: Grok Code Fast 1 — XAI's speed-tier coding model at $0.20/$1.50 with a 256K window — cheap, fast agentic code over frontier quality — and it is the newer of the two.
Low-latency code generation and terminal tasks: Grok Code Fast 1 — Grok Code Fast 1 lists low-latency code generation and terminal tasks among its strengths; Llama 4 Scout does not.
High-volume coding pipelines where speed beats peak quality: Grok Code Fast 1 — Grok Code Fast 1 lists high-volume coding pipelines where speed beats peak quality among its strengths; Llama 4 Scout does not.
Largest advertised context (10M): Llama 4 Scout — Its 10M window holds about 39× more than Grok Code Fast 1's 256K in a single prompt.
Open weights, single-GPU friendly: Llama 4 Scout — Open weights make this possible at all — Grok Code Fast 1 is API-only, so it cannot leave the vendor's servers.
Self-hosted, data-private deployment: Llama 4 Scout — The 10M-token open-weight giant — enormous on paper, but usable recall is far smaller — and it carries the larger 10M context.
Lowest cost at scale: Llama 4 Scout — Its weights are open, so at volume you pay for your own hardware instead of Grok Code Fast 1's $0.2/$1.5 per 1M tokens.
Largest single-prompt input: Llama 4 Scout — Its 10M window is about 39× larger than Grok Code Fast 1's 256K, fitting roughly 15,000 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume: Llama 4 Scout — At Open weight (self-host / free) it undercuts Grok Code Fast 1, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases: Llama 4 Scout — Larger 10M window fits more in one prompt.
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs: Llama 4 Scout — Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; Grok Code Fast 1 is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is fast, cheap agentic coding at $0.20/$1.50: Grok Code Fast 1 — It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is largest advertised context (10m): Llama 4 Scout — That is its strongest area.
Grok Code Fast 1: where it fits
XAI's speed-tier coding model at $0.20/$1.50 with a 256K window — cheap, fast agentic code over frontier quality. Released August 28, 2025 by xAI, it is built for fast, cheap agentic coding at $0.20/$1.50, low-latency code generation and terminal tasks, high-volume coding pipelines where speed beats peak quality, and a 256K window sized for real codebases.
Its trade-offs are real: text and code only — no image, audio or video input, xAI did not publish a SWE-Bench Verified score, a speed-tier coding model, not a frontier reasoner, and narrow focus — built for code, not general knowledge work. At $0.2 in / $1.5 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
Llama 4 Scout: where it fits
The 10M-token open-weight giant — enormous on paper, but usable recall is far smaller. Released April 2025 by Meta, it is built for largest advertised context (10M), open weights, single-GPU friendly, self-hosted, data-private deployment, and retrieval over very long inputs.
Its trade-offs: effective recall degrades far below 10M, and ~15% on long-context multi-needle reasoning. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.
The bottom line for this matchup
The defining split here is open vs. closed. Llama 4 Scout gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. Grok Code Fast 1 gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok Code Fast 1 or Llama 4 Scout better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Grok Code Fast 1 leans toward fast, cheap agentic coding at $0.20/$1.50 while Llama 4 Scout leans toward largest advertised context (10m), and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Grok Code Fast 1 or Llama 4 Scout?
Llama 4 Scout is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while Grok Code Fast 1 is API-metered at $0.2/$1.5 per 1M tokens. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.
Which has the bigger context window?
Llama 4 Scout — 10M vs 256K, about 39× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both Grok Code Fast 1 and Llama 4 Scout together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Grok Code Fast 1, Llama 4 Scout and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Grok Code Fast 1 or Llama 4 Scout?
Grok Code Fast 1 — released August 28, 2025, about 5 months after Llama 4 Scout.
Grok Code Fast 1 vs Llama 4 Scout
xAI · US | Meta · US · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick Grok Code Fast 1 for fast, cheap agentic coding at $0.20/$1.50 or low-latency code generation and terminal tasks. Pick Llama 4 Scout for largest advertised context (10m) or open weights, single-gpu friendly. Choose Llama 4 Scout if you need self-hosting or data privacy; Grok Code Fast 1 if you want a managed API.
Grok Code Fast 1 (xAI) and Llama 4 Scout (Meta) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. Grok Code Fast 1 is xAI's speed-tier coding model at $0.20/$1.50 with a 256K window — cheap, fast agentic code over frontier quality. Llama 4 Scout is the 10M-token open-weight giant — enormous on paper, but usable recall is far smaller. They diverge most on price, context window and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences at a glance
▸Cost model: Llama 4 Scout ships open weights you can self-host (hardware cost only, no per-token fee), while Grok Code Fast 1 is API-metered at $0.2/$1.5 per 1M tokens. Your choice depends on whether you want zero marginal cost at the price of running infrastructure.
▸Context window: Llama 4 Scout holds 39× more — 10M (~15,000 pages) vs 256K (~384 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
▸Recency: Grok Code Fast 1 is the newer model by about 5 months (released August 28, 2025), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Side-by-side specs
Spec
Grok Code Fast 1
Llama 4 Scout
Provider
xAI (US)
Meta (US)
Released
August 28, 2025
April 2025
Context window
256K (~384 pages)
10M (~15,000 pages)
Price (in/out)
$0.2/$1.5 per 1M tokens
Open weight (self-host / free)
Open weight?
No — API only
Yes — self-hostable
Modalities
text, code
text, image, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
15%
Who wins what
Fast, cheap agentic coding at $0.20/$1.50
Grok Code Fast 1
XAI's speed-tier coding model at $0.20/$1.50 with a 256K window — cheap, fast agentic code over frontier quality — and it is the newer of the two.
Low-latency code generation and terminal tasks
Grok Code Fast 1
Grok Code Fast 1 lists low-latency code generation and terminal tasks among its strengths; Llama 4 Scout does not.
High-volume coding pipelines where speed beats peak quality
Grok Code Fast 1
Grok Code Fast 1 lists high-volume coding pipelines where speed beats peak quality among its strengths; Llama 4 Scout does not.
Largest advertised context (10M)
Llama 4 Scout
Its 10M window holds about 39× more than Grok Code Fast 1's 256K in a single prompt.
Open weights, single-GPU friendly
Llama 4 Scout
Open weights make this possible at all — Grok Code Fast 1 is API-only, so it cannot leave the vendor's servers.
Self-hosted, data-private deployment
Llama 4 Scout
The 10M-token open-weight giant — enormous on paper, but usable recall is far smaller — and it carries the larger 10M context.
Lowest cost at scale
Llama 4 Scout
Its weights are open, so at volume you pay for your own hardware instead of Grok Code Fast 1's $0.2/$1.5 per 1M tokens.
Largest single-prompt input
Llama 4 Scout
Its 10M window is about 39× larger than Grok Code Fast 1's 256K, fitting roughly 15,000 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ Llama 4 Scout
At Open weight (self-host / free) it undercuts Grok Code Fast 1, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases
→ Llama 4 Scout
Larger 10M window fits more in one prompt.
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs
→ Llama 4 Scout
Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; Grok Code Fast 1 is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is fast, cheap agentic coding at $0.20/$1.50
→ Grok Code Fast 1
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is largest advertised context (10m)
→ Llama 4 Scout
That is its strongest area.
Grok Code Fast 1: where it fits
XAI's speed-tier coding model at $0.20/$1.50 with a 256K window — cheap, fast agentic code over frontier quality. Released August 28, 2025 by xAI, it is built for fast, cheap agentic coding at $0.20/$1.50, low-latency code generation and terminal tasks, high-volume coding pipelines where speed beats peak quality, and a 256K window sized for real codebases.
Its trade-offs are real: text and code only — no image, audio or video input, xAI did not publish a SWE-Bench Verified score, a speed-tier coding model, not a frontier reasoner, and narrow focus — built for code, not general knowledge work. At $0.2 in / $1.5 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
Llama 4 Scout: where it fits
The 10M-token open-weight giant — enormous on paper, but usable recall is far smaller. Released April 2025 by Meta, it is built for largest advertised context (10M), open weights, single-GPU friendly, self-hosted, data-private deployment, and retrieval over very long inputs.
Its trade-offs: effective recall degrades far below 10M, and ~15% on long-context multi-needle reasoning. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.
The bottom line for this matchup
The defining split here is open vs. closed. Llama 4 Scout gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. Grok Code Fast 1 gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.
Want both Grok Code Fast 1 and Llama 4 Scout without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.
Is Grok Code Fast 1 or Llama 4 Scout better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Grok Code Fast 1 leans toward fast, cheap agentic coding at $0.20/$1.50 while Llama 4 Scout leans toward largest advertised context (10m), and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Grok Code Fast 1 or Llama 4 Scout?
Llama 4 Scout is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while Grok Code Fast 1 is API-metered at $0.2/$1.5 per 1M tokens. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.
Which has the bigger context window?
Llama 4 Scout — 10M vs 256K, about 39× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both Grok Code Fast 1 and Llama 4 Scout together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Grok Code Fast 1, Llama 4 Scout and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Grok Code Fast 1 or Llama 4 Scout?
Grok Code Fast 1 — released August 28, 2025, about 5 months after Llama 4 Scout.
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.