Llama 4 Scout 17B vs Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B
Llama 4 Scout 17B (2025) and Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B (2026) are general-purpose language models from AI at Meta and Microsoft Research. Llama 4 Scout 17B ships a 10m-token context window, while Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B ships a not-yet-sourced context window. This comparison covers specs, pricing, capabilities, benchmarks, provider availability, and production fit. It focuses on practical selection signals rather than broad model-family marketing.
Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B is safer overall; choose Llama 4 Scout 17B when provider fit matters.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Llama 4 Scout 17B | Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B |
|---|---|---|
| Best for | multimodal apps and long-context analysis | multimodal apps |
| Decision fit | RAG, Long context, and Vision | Vision |
| Context window | 10m | — |
| Cheapest output | $0.66/1M tokens | - |
| Provider routes | 1 tracked | 0 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 0 rows | 0 rows |
Decision tradeoffs
- Llama 4 Scout 17B has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- Llama 4 Scout 17B has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
- Llama 4 Scout 17B uniquely exposes Structured outputs in local model data.
- Local decision data tags Llama 4 Scout 17B for RAG, Long context, and Vision.
- Local decision data tags Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B for Vision.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.
Llama 4 Scout 17B
$301
Cheapest tracked route/tier: AWS Bedrock
Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B
Unavailable
No complete token price in local provider data
Cost delta unavailable until both models have sourced input and output token prices.
Switch friction
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Llama 4 Scout 17B and Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Check replacement coverage for Structured outputs before moving production traffic.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B and Llama 4 Scout 17B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Llama 4 Scout 17B adds Structured outputs in local capability data.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2025-10-01 | 2026-03-12 |
| Context window | 10m | — |
| Parameters | 17 | 15B |
| Architecture | - | - |
| License | Open Source | Microsoft Research |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2024-08 | 2025-03 |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Llama 4 Scout 17B | Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.17/1M tokens | - |
| Output price | $0.66/1M tokens | - |
| Providers | - |
Capabilities
| Capability | Llama 4 Scout 17B | Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | No | No |
| Multimodal | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Function calling | No | No |
| Tool use | No | No |
| Structured outputs | Yes | No |
| Code execution | No | No |
| IDE integration | No | No |
| Computer use | No | No |
| Parallel agents | No | No |
Benchmarks
No shared benchmark rows are currently sourced for this pair.
Deep dive
The capability footprint differs most on structured outputs: Llama 4 Scout 17B. Both models share multimodal input, so the practical split is not just feature count. Use those differences to decide whether the page is about raw model quality, agentic coding support, multimodal ingestion, or predictable structured API behavior.
Pricing coverage is uneven: Llama 4 Scout 17B has $0.17/1M input tokens and Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B has no token price sourced yet. Provider availability is 1 tracked routes versus 0. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.
Choose Llama 4 Scout 17B when provider fit and broader provider choice are central to the workload. Choose Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B when provider fit are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship. This keeps the decision grounded in measurable tradeoffs instead of brand-level assumptions. It also helps separate model capability from provider packaging, which can change cost and latency. For teams standardizing a stack, that distinction is often the difference between a benchmark win and a reliable deployment.
FAQ
Is Llama 4 Scout 17B or Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B open source?
Llama 4 Scout 17B is listed under Open Source. Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B is listed under Microsoft Research. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.
Which is better for multimodal input, Llama 4 Scout 17B or Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B?
Both Llama 4 Scout 17B and Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B expose multimodal input. The better choice depends on benchmark fit, context budget, pricing, and whether your provider route exposes the same capability surface.
Which is better for structured outputs, Llama 4 Scout 17B or Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B?
Llama 4 Scout 17B has the clearer documented structured outputs signal in this comparison. If structured outputs is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Where can I run Llama 4 Scout 17B and Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B?
Llama 4 Scout 17B is available on AWS Bedrock. Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B is available on the tracked providers still being sourced. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
When should I pick Llama 4 Scout 17B over Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B?
Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B is safer overall; choose Llama 4 Scout 17B when provider fit matters. If your workload also depends on provider fit, start with Llama 4 Scout 17B; if it depends on provider fit, run the same evaluation with Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-05-11. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.