Llama 4 Scout vs Muse Spark 1.2
Pricing verdict: Llama 4 Scout vs Muse Spark 1.2: Llama 4 Scout is cheaper for input-heavy usage ($0.08/M vs $1.25/M input tokens), while Llama 4 Scout is better for long-context tasks (10,000,000 tokens).
Direct answer: choose Llama 4 Scout for lower token spend and choose Llama 4 Scout when your workload needs longer context.
Compare API pricing, input and output token costs, context windows, and monthly estimates on one page so you can pick the right model fast.
Cost Comparison (1000 input + 500 output tokens, 100 requests/day)
Llama 4 Scout
Muse Spark 1.2
Cost Differences
Muse Spark 1.2 costs more than Llama 4 Scout
Quick Recommendation
Winner for direct API pricing: Llama 4 Scout. At the default workload, Llama 4 Scout saves about $9.435/month ($114.7925/year) versus Muse Spark 1.2.
Feature Comparison
| Feature | Llama 4 Scout | Muse Spark 1.2 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta (via Together AI) | Meta (via Together AI) |
| Input Price | $0.08/1M tokens | $1.25/1M tokens |
| Output Price | $0.30/1M tokens | $4.25/1M tokens |
| Context Window | 10,000,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens |
| Max Output | 32,768 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Category | efficient | coding |
| Capabilities | textvisioncode | textvisionaudiovideocodereasoning |
| Release Date | 4/5/2025 | 8/5/2026 |
Llama 4 Scout vs Muse Spark 1.2: Which Should You Choose?
Choosing between Llama 4 Scout and Muse Spark 1.2 depends on your priorities: cost efficiency, context length, or raw capability. Llama 4 Scout is the more affordable option at $0.08/1M input tokens — 94% cheaper than Muse Spark 1.2. Meanwhile, Llama 4 Scout offers a significantly larger context window at 10,000,000 tokens vs 1,000,000 for Muse Spark 1.2.
These models target different tiers: Llama 4 Scout is a efficient model while Muse Spark 1.2 is coding. This means they're optimized for different workloads. Muse Spark 1.2 targets more demanding workloads, while Llama 4 Scout provides a cost-effective option for everyday tasks.
Output costs matter too. Llama 4 Scout charges $0.30/1M output tokens vs $4.25 for Muse Spark 1.2. For generation-heavy workloads (content creation, code generation, summarization), output pricing often dominates your bill. Llama 4 Scout has the edge here at $0.30/1M output tokens.
Multimodal capabilities: Both models support vision (image understanding), so you can send images alongside text prompts with either option.
Best Use Cases
Choose Llama 4 Scout when:
- • Budget is a primary concern
- • You need a larger context window (10,000,000 tokens)
- • You're already using Meta (via Together AI)'s API ecosystem
- • You're running high-volume, latency-sensitive workloads
Choose Muse Spark 1.2 when:
- • You need more capabilities (audio, video, reasoning)
- • You need longer outputs (up to 131,072 tokens)
- • You're already using Meta (via Together AI)'s API ecosystem
Pros and Caveats at a Glance
Llama 4 Scout
- • Input pricing: $0.08/M tokens
- • Output pricing: $0.30/M tokens
- • Context window: 10,000,000 tokens
- • Max output: 32,768 tokens
Watch out for
- • Trade-offs are minor in this matchup.
Muse Spark 1.2
- • Input pricing: $1.25/M tokens
- • Output pricing: $4.25/M tokens
- • Context window: 1,000,000 tokens
- • Max output: 131,072 tokens
Watch out for
- • Higher input cost than Llama 4 Scout
- • Higher output cost than Llama 4 Scout
- • Smaller context window than Llama 4 Scout
Try Different Scenarios
Use the calculator below to see how costs change with different usage patterns
Llama 4 Scout (Meta (via Together AI))
Muse Spark 1.2 (Meta (via Together AI))
Start using Llama 4 Scout today
Sign Up for Meta (via Together AI) →Start using Muse Spark 1.2 today
Sign Up for Meta (via Together AI) →Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, Llama 4 Scout or Muse Spark 1.2?▼
What is the context window difference between Llama 4 Scout and Muse Spark 1.2?▼
Which model is better for AI Chatbot?▼
Which model has better overall pricing for heavy usage?▼
Related Comparisons
Related Articles
Learn when to pick each model, then compare live pricing scenarios.