Llama 4 Scout vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
Meta · US | Nanbeige LLM Lab (BOSS Zhipin) · China · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick Llama 4 Scout for largest advertised context (10m) or open weights, single-gpu friendly. Pick Nanbeige4.3-33B for 33b dense open-weight model under apache 2.0 with a 524,288-token context or artificial analysis intelligence index of 20, first of the 8 models in its comparison class.
Llama 4 Scout (Meta, US) and Nanbeige4.3-33B (Nanbeige LLM Lab (BOSS Zhipin), China) line up two different AI ecosystems against each other — a comparison that is as much about cost philosophy and openness as raw capability. Llama 4 Scout is the 10M-token open-weight giant — enormous on paper, but usable recall is far smaller. Nanbeige4.3-33B is nanbeige LLM Lab's October 25, 2026 Apache 2.0 open model - 33B parameters and 512K context, aimed at agentic coding on modest hardware. Their biggest split is context window, and the breakdown below shows exactly how that plays out for your workload.
Key differences at a glance
- ▸Context window: Llama 4 Scout holds 19× more — 10M (~15,000 pages) vs 512K tokens (~786 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
- ▸Recency: Nanbeige4.3-33B is the newer model by about 19 months (released October 25, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
- ▸Ecosystem: this is a US-vs-China matchup — they differ in pricing philosophy, data-residency options, and tooling ecosystems, not only benchmarks.
Side-by-side specs
| Spec | Llama 4 Scout | Nanbeige4.3-33B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta (US) | Nanbeige LLM Lab (BOSS Zhipin) (China) |
| Released | April 2025 | October 25, 2026 |
| Context window | 10M (~15,000 pages) | 512K tokens (~786 pages) |
| Price (in/out) | Open weight (self-host / free) | Open weight (self-host / free) |
| Open weight? | Yes — self-hostable | Yes — self-hostable |
| Modalities | text, image, code | text, code |
| SWE-Bench Verified | Not published | Not published |
| MRCR v2 @ 1M | 15% | Not published |
Who wins what
Largest advertised context (10M)
Llama 4 Scout
Its 10M window holds about 19× more than Nanbeige4.3-33B's 512K tokens in a single prompt.
Open weights, single-GPU friendly
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.
Self-hosted, data-private deployment
Llama 4 Scout
Llama 4 Scout lists self-hosted, data-private deployment among its strengths; Nanbeige4.3-33B does not.
33B dense open-weight model under Apache 2.0 with a 524,288-token context
Nanbeige4.3-33B
Llama 4 Scout is comparatively weak here — ~15% on long-context multi-needle reasoning
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index of 20, first of the 8 models in its comparison class
Nanbeige4.3-33B
Nanbeige LLM Lab's October 25, 2026 Apache 2.0 open model - 33B parameters and 512K context, aimed at agentic coding on modest hardware — and it is the newer of the two.
Lab-reported Terminal-Bench 2.1 of 80.9 and DeepSWE of 65.5
Nanbeige4.3-33B
Nanbeige4.3-33B lists lab-reported Terminal-Bench 2.1 of 80.9 and DeepSWE of 65.5 among its strengths; Llama 4 Scout does not.
Largest single-prompt input
Llama 4 Scout
Its 10M window is about 19× larger than Nanbeige4.3-33B's 512K tokens, fitting roughly 15,000 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases
→ Llama 4 Scout
Larger 10M window fits more in one prompt.
Anyone whose priority is largest advertised context (10m)
→ Llama 4 Scout
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is 33b dense open-weight model under apache 2.0 with a 524,288-token context
→ Nanbeige4.3-33B
That is its strongest area.
An enterprise with regional data-residency rules
→ Llama 4 Scout or Nanbeige4.3-33B
Origin (US vs China) affects where data is processed and which compliance regime applies — check the provider's terms for your region.
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 are real: 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.
Nanbeige4.3-33B: where it fits
Nanbeige LLM Lab's October 25, 2026 Apache 2.0 open model - 33B parameters and 512K context, aimed at agentic coding on modest hardware. Released October 25, 2026 by Nanbeige LLM Lab (BOSS Zhipin), it is built for 33B dense open-weight model under Apache 2.0 with a 524,288-token context, artificial Analysis Intelligence Index of 20, first of the 8 models in its comparison class, and lab-reported Terminal-Bench 2.1 of 80.9 and DeepSWE of 65.5.
Its trade-offs: coding benchmarks are self-reported, with non-standard settings noted on the model card and no independent reproduction, no public first-party API or per-token price; Artificial Analysis lists no publicly available API, and text-only input. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.
The bottom line for this matchup
This is less "which is smarter" and more "which ecosystem fits." Llama 4 Scout (US) and Nanbeige4.3-33B (China) differ on pricing philosophy, data-residency, and tooling as much as on raw scores. The pragmatic move is to run one real task through both and judge the outputs against your own constraints — including where your data is allowed to be processed.
Want both Llama 4 Scout and Nanbeige4.3-33B 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.
See pricingFrequently asked questions
Is Llama 4 Scout or Nanbeige4.3-33B 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, Llama 4 Scout leans toward largest advertised context (10m) while Nanbeige4.3-33B leans toward 33b dense open-weight model under apache 2.0 with a 524,288-token context, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Llama 4 Scout or Nanbeige4.3-33B?
They are priced almost identically, so cost will not decide between them.
Which has the bigger context window?
Llama 4 Scout — 10M vs 512K tokens, about 19× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both Llama 4 Scout and Nanbeige4.3-33B together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Llama 4 Scout, Nanbeige4.3-33B 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, Llama 4 Scout or Nanbeige4.3-33B?
Nanbeige4.3-33B — released October 25, 2026, about 19 months after Llama 4 Scout.
Related comparisons
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.