Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Llama 4 Scout
Anthropic vs Meta — Llama 4 Scout is 94% cheaper on input and 96% cheaper on output, with the same 1M context window.
Pricing data verified: Jun 10, 2026
| Specification | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| Input Price (per 1M tokens) | $3.00 | $0.18 |
| Output Price (per 1M tokens) | $15.00 | $0.59 |
| Context Window | 1M tokens | 1M tokens |
| Tier | Mid | Budget |
| Provider | Anthropic | Meta (Together.ai) |
| Input Savings | Baseline | 94% cheaper |
| Output Savings | Baseline | 96% cheaper |
| Cost at 1M input + 500K output | $10.50 | $0.47 |
Calculate Your Exact Costs
Enter your usage to see a precise cost comparison for both models.
Which Model for Which Use Case?
Budget-Conscious Teams
Llama 4 Scout at $0.18/M input is 94% cheaper than Sonnet 4.6. For startups and side projects where every dollar counts, Llama 4 Scout is the clear winner.
Safety-Conscious Applications
Anthropic's Sonnet 4.6 is built with safety as a core priority. For applications handling sensitive data or requiring careful content moderation, Sonnet 4.6's safety features are worth the premium.
Managed vs Self-Hosted
Sonnet 4.6 comes with Anthropic's managed API — zero infrastructure to manage. Llama 4 Scout via Together.ai is also managed, but self-hosting gives you full control.
Quality at Scale
For workloads requiring consistent high-quality output at scale, Sonnet 4.6's refined training delivers reliable results. Llama 4 Scout is competitive but may require more prompt engineering.
Need deeper cost analysis?
APIpulse Pro lets you compare all 39 models, save scenarios, and export PDF reports.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Llama 4 Scout cheaper than Claude Sonnet 4.6?
Yes. Llama 4 Scout costs $0.18/M input and $0.59/M output. Claude Sonnet 4.6 costs $3.00/M input and $15.00/M output. Llama is 94% cheaper on input and 96% cheaper on output. For 1M input + 500K output tokens/month, Llama costs $0.48 vs Sonnet's $10.50 — saving $10.02/month (95%).
Which has a larger context window?
Both models offer a 1M token context window. Neither has an advantage in context size — the choice comes down to cost, quality, and ecosystem.
When should I choose Claude Sonnet 4.6 over Llama 4 Scout?
Choose Sonnet 4.6 when: (1) you need Anthropic's safety-focused approach, (2) you want managed infrastructure with SLAs, (3) your workload requires the highest quality reasoning. Choose Llama 4 Scout when: (1) cost is critical (94-96% cheaper), (2) you can self-host or use Together.ai, (3) you want open-source control.
Are both models good for production?
Both support production workloads. Sonnet 4.6 is Anthropic's mid-tier model with enterprise support and safety features. Llama 4 Scout is Meta's open-source model via Together.ai — dramatically cheaper but requires more infrastructure management.