Llama 4 Variants: How to Pick the Right Open Source Model Without Regret

Ah, Llama 4 – the open-source darling that's supposedly democratizing AI for everyone, if you can decipher which variant actually does what you need. Because nothing says "developer-friendly" quite like three different models with cryptic names and overlapping feature sets, right?

The State of Play in Early 2026

If you've been paying attention to Meta's AI shenanigans, you might have caught Meta CTO Andrew Bosworth's rather blunt assessment at the World Economic Forum: he called Llama 4 a "disappointment," citing its lack of focus and underperformance in specific areas. Ouch. When your own CTO throws shade publicly, you know there's some soul-searching happening in Menlo Park. But before you write off the Llama 4 ecosystem entirely, here's the thing – despite Bosworth's criticisms, a new AI model is reportedly "looking really good" and set for release in the first half of 2026. In the meantime, Scout and Maverick remain your viable open-weight options.

Meet Your Options: Scout, Maverick, and Behemoth

Image: Data Studios comparison of Llama 4 model family

Llama 4 Scout: The Memory Monster

Scout is the context window king, boasting a mind-bending 10 million token context window. That's not a typo – we're talking about digesting entire manuals, massive code archives, and video transcripts in one pass. Under the hood, it uses a Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architecture with 16 experts, activating only 17 billion parameters at a time out of 109 billion total. Clever efficiency hack, actually.

According to pricing data from LLM Stats, Scout runs at $0.08 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens across providers like DeepInfra, Lambda, Novita, Groq, Fireworks, and Together. That's not just cheap – it's borderline suspicious for what you're getting.

Use Scout when you're doing:

Long-document summarization that doesn't hallucinate
Multi-file code analysis with cross-referencing
"Memory-intensive" workflows that maintain coherence across massive datasets
Knowledge management systems that need to "remember" everything

Llama 4 Maverick: The Balanced Workhorse

Maverick is Meta's attempt at the Goldilocks zone – smart but not wallet-breaking. It brings a 1 million token context window (still ridiculous for most use cases) and uses an MoE architecture with 128 experts, activating the same 17 billion parameters but from a 400 billion total parameter pool. More experts, more potential for specialized reasoning.

The numbers back this up: Maverick scores 80.9 on MMLU and 67.1 on GPQA, compared to Scout's 75.2 and 58.7 respectively. It's genuinely better at reasoning tasks, particularly coding and technical analysis. Pricing reflects this premium at $0.15 input / $0.60 output per million tokens, available through seven providers including DeepInfra, Novita, Lambda, Groq, Fireworks, Together, and Sambanova.

Maverick shines when:

Building interactive chatbots that don't lose the plot
Coding assistants that need both accuracy and speed
Enterprise applications where budget matters, but quality matters more
Any workflow requiring robust reasoning with acceptable latency

Llama 4 Behemoth: The Ghost in the Machine

Behemoth is Meta's frontier model with 288 billion active parameters out of a mind-boggling 2 trillion total. It's currently locked behind closed beta for select partners and research institutions, serving primarily as a "teacher model" for distilling knowledge into Scout and Maverick. Early benchmarks suggest performance exceeding GPT-4.5 and Claude Sonnet 3.7 in STEM domains, but the hardware requirements make it inaccessible for most.

Note: You'll likely never use Behemoth directly unless you're an enterprise partner or academic researcher. But its existence explains why Scout and Maverick keep getting better – distillation pipelines work.

Image: ASO World feature comparison across Llama 4 variants

Making the Call: Which One Actually Fits Your Project?

Here's the unvarnished truth: most developers will never need Scout's 10 million token context. It's a feature designed for research institutions and enterprises dealing with legacy data at massive scale. If you're building a typical chatbot, content generator, or coding assistant, Maverick's 1 million tokens is more overkill than advantage.

Choose Scout if:

You're in academia doing research on massive datasets
Enterprise knowledge management with extensive legacy documentation
Legal document analysis requiring full context awareness
You have specific use cases that demonstrably fail with smaller context windows

Choose Maverick if:

You're building consumer or enterprise applications
Coding assistants that need strong reasoning
Customer support bots that must remain coherent
You want the best bang-for-buck in the Llama 4 ecosystem
Your project has actual revenue constraints and performance requirements

The Bigger Picture: Open Source vs. Everything Else

What makes Llama 4 genuinely compelling isn't any single feature – it's the controlled openness. Both Scout and Maverick are available as open-weight models under the Llama 4 Community License Agreement, meaning you can deploy them locally, fine-tune them for specific domains, and integrate them into your infrastructure without vendor lock-in. That's increasingly rare in an AI world dominated by closed, proprietary systems.

Comparison analysis from SparkCo.ai highlights that Llama 4's strength lies in adaptability and support for domain-specific customization, making it particularly suitable for academic research and industry-specific applications. Projects leveraging these models have reported up to 30% reductions in deployment costs compared to proprietary alternatives.

The Verdict

Meta's Llama 4 family isn't perfect – Bosworth's public criticism confirms that. But Scout and Maverick represent the most accessible, customizable open-source AI options available in early 2026. The real question isn't whether they're perfect; it's whether they're good enough for your specific use case while giving you control over deployment and cost.

For most developers starting a project today, Maverick is the safer bet – it offers stronger reasoning benchmarks, reasonable pricing, and a context window that's overkill in the best way. Scout is for the rarefied few who genuinely need to process entire codebases or document collections in one shot. And Behemoth? That's the future, distilling into Scout and Maverick whether you see it or not.

Choose based on actual requirements, not context window envy. Your future self (and your budget) will thank you.

Sources: