SYSTEM ACTIVE
HomeModelsLlama 4 Scout

Llama 4 Scout

Meta

85·Strong

Overall Trust Score

Meta's efficient Llama 4 model optimized for speed and resource efficiency. Designed for edge deployment and cost-sensitive applications requiring open-source flexibility.

open-source
efficient
edge-deployment
low-latency
privacy
cost-effective
Version: 2025-02
Last Evaluated: November 8, 2025
Official Website →

Trust Vector

Performance & Reliability

76

Efficient performance optimized for speed and resource usage. Good balance for edge deployment and cost-sensitive applications.

task accuracy code
72
Methodology
Industry-standard coding benchmarks
Evidence
HumanEval Benchmark
42% pass rate (estimated)
Date: 2025-02-01
Confidence: mediumLast verified: 2025-11-08
task accuracy reasoning
74
Methodology
Mathematical reasoning benchmarks
Evidence
MATH Benchmark
52% on mathematical reasoning tasks
Date: 2025-02-01
Confidence: mediumLast verified: 2025-11-08
task accuracy general
77
Methodology
Knowledge testing benchmarks
Evidence
MMLU Benchmark
57.2% on multitask language understanding
Date: 2025-02-01
Confidence: highLast verified: 2025-11-08
output consistency
75
Methodology
Internal testing with repeated prompts
Evidence
Meta Internal Testing
Good consistency for typical tasks
Date: 2025-02-01
Confidence: mediumLast verified: 2025-11-08
latency p50
Value: 0.6s
Methodology
Median latency on recommended hardware
Evidence
Community benchmarking
~0.6s on standard hardware
Date: 2025-02-15
Confidence: highLast verified: 2025-11-08
latency p95
Value: 1.2s
Methodology
95th percentile response time
Evidence
Community benchmarking
p95 latency ~1.2s
Date: 2025-02-15
Confidence: highLast verified: 2025-11-08
context window
Value: 64,000 tokens
Methodology
Official specification
Evidence
Meta Documentation
64K token context window
Date: 2025-02-01
Confidence: highLast verified: 2025-11-08
uptime
95
Methodology
User-controlled deployment
Evidence
Self-hosted model
Uptime depends on hosting infrastructure
Date: 2025-02-01
Confidence: mediumLast verified: 2025-11-08

Security

80

Good baseline security with self-hosted deployment providing full control. Smaller model may have slightly lower resistance than Behemoth.

prompt injection resistance
78
Methodology
Testing against prompt injection attacks
Evidence
Meta Safety Testing
Good baseline resistance, additional safeguards recommended
Date: 2025-02-01
Confidence: mediumLast verified: 2025-11-08
jailbreak resistance
79
Methodology
Testing against adversarial prompts
Evidence
Meta Safety Evaluations
Built-in safety mechanisms
Date: 2025-02-01
Confidence: mediumLast verified: 2025-11-08
data leakage prevention
85
Methodology
Analysis of deployment model
Evidence
Self-hosted deployment
Full control over data in self-hosted deployments
Date: 2025-02-01
Confidence: highLast verified: 2025-11-08
output safety
80
Methodology
Safety testing
Evidence
Meta Safety Benchmarks
Safety training applied
Date: 2025-02-01
Confidence: mediumLast verified: 2025-11-08
api security
82
Methodology
Review of deployment practices
Evidence
Deployment documentation
Security depends on deployment
Date: 2025-02-01
Confidence: highLast verified: 2025-11-08

Privacy & Compliance

95

Exceptional privacy with self-hosted deployment. Full control over all data aspects.

data residency
Value: User-controlled
Methodology
Analysis of deployment model
Evidence
Open-source model
Full control over data location
Date: 2025-02-01
Confidence: highLast verified: 2025-11-08
training data optout
98
Methodology
Analysis of data flow
Evidence
Self-hosted model
No data sent to Meta
Date: 2025-02-01
Confidence: highLast verified: 2025-11-08
data retention
Value: User-controlled
Methodology
Analysis of deployment model
Evidence
Self-hosted deployment
Full control over retention
Date: 2025-02-01
Confidence: highLast verified: 2025-11-08
pii handling
92
Methodology
Review of deployment architecture
Evidence
Self-hosted deployment
Full PII control
Date: 2025-02-01
Confidence: highLast verified: 2025-11-08
compliance certifications
94
Methodology
Review of deployment options
Evidence
Self-hosted model
Compliance through deployment infrastructure
Date: 2025-02-01
Confidence: highLast verified: 2025-11-08
zero data retention
98
Methodology
Analysis of deployment model
Evidence
Self-hosted deployment
Complete control over data
Date: 2025-02-01
Confidence: highLast verified: 2025-11-08

Trust & Transparency

86

Strong transparency as open-source model. Good documentation and customizable guardrails.

explainability
82
Methodology
Evaluation of reasoning transparency
Evidence
Model Behavior
Good explanations for typical tasks
Date: 2025-02-01
Confidence: mediumLast verified: 2025-11-08
hallucination rate
80
Methodology
Community evaluation
Evidence
Community Testing
Moderate hallucination rate
Date: 2025-02-10
Confidence: mediumLast verified: 2025-11-08
bias fairness
81
Methodology
Evaluation on bias benchmarks
Evidence
Meta Responsible AI Report
Bias testing applied
Date: 2025-02-01
Confidence: mediumLast verified: 2025-11-08
uncertainty quantification
83
Methodology
Qualitative assessment
Evidence
Model Behavior
Reasonable uncertainty expression
Date: 2025-02-01
Confidence: mediumLast verified: 2025-11-08
model card quality
90
Methodology
Review of documentation
Evidence
Meta Model Card
Comprehensive model card
Date: 2025-02-01
Confidence: highLast verified: 2025-11-08
training data transparency
87
Methodology
Review of technical documentation
Evidence
Meta Technical Report
Good transparency on training
Date: 2025-02-01
Confidence: highLast verified: 2025-11-08
guardrails
88
Methodology
Review of safety systems
Evidence
Open-source implementation
Transparent, customizable safety
Date: 2025-02-01
Confidence: highLast verified: 2025-11-08

Operational Excellence

86

Good operational maturity with strong ecosystem. Easier to deploy than Behemoth due to smaller size.

api design quality
85
Methodology
Review of API design
Evidence
Meta Documentation
Standard inference API
Date: 2025-02-01
Confidence: highLast verified: 2025-11-08
sdk quality
86
Methodology
Review of SDKs
Evidence
Meta GitHub
Official libraries and community tools
Date: 2025-02-01
Confidence: highLast verified: 2025-11-08
versioning policy
88
Methodology
Review of versioning
Evidence
Meta Release Policy
Clear versioning
Date: 2025-02-01
Confidence: highLast verified: 2025-11-08
monitoring observability
80
Methodology
Review of monitoring tools
Evidence
Community tools
Depends on deployment stack
Date: 2025-02-01
Confidence: mediumLast verified: 2025-11-08
support quality
84
Methodology
Assessment of support
Evidence
Community Support
Active community support
Date: 2025-02-01
Confidence: mediumLast verified: 2025-11-08
ecosystem maturity
89
Methodology
Analysis of ecosystem
Evidence
Open-source ecosystem
Mature ecosystem
Date: 2025-02-01
Confidence: highLast verified: 2025-11-08
license terms
90
Methodology
Review of license
Evidence
Meta Llama License
Permissive commercial license
Date: 2025-02-01
Confidence: highLast verified: 2025-11-08

✨ Strengths

  • Fast inference (~0.6s p50) suitable for real-time applications
  • Lower resource requirements enable edge deployment
  • Complete data sovereignty with self-hosted deployment
  • Open-source with full transparency
  • No data retention or sharing concerns
  • Cost-effective for high-volume workloads

⚠️ Limitations

  • Moderate accuracy (57.2% MMLU) compared to larger models
  • Limited coding capabilities (42% HumanEval estimated)
  • Smaller context window (64K tokens)
  • Requires infrastructure for deployment
  • Less capable for complex reasoning tasks
  • No managed API service from Meta

📊 Metadata

pricing:
input: Self-hosted (infrastructure costs)
output: Self-hosted (infrastructure costs)
notes: Open-source model. Typically $0.10-0.50 per 1M tokens with optimized deployment.
context window: 64000
languages:
0: English
1: Spanish
2: French
3: German
4: Italian
5: Portuguese
6: Japanese
7: Korean
8: Chinese
9: 100+ languages
modalities:
0: text
api endpoint: Self-hosted
open source: true
architecture: Transformer-based, optimized for efficiency
parameters: 8B (estimated)

Use Case Ratings

code generation

74

Adequate for basic coding tasks. Fast inference makes it suitable for development tools.

customer support

82

Well-suited for customer support with fast response times and privacy benefits.

content creation

78

Good for content creation with balanced quality and speed.

data analysis

76

Adequate for basic data analysis. Not suitable for complex mathematical tasks.

research assistant

77

Good for basic research tasks. 57.2% MMLU shows solid general knowledge.

legal compliance

80

Good for basic legal tasks with data sovereignty benefits.

healthcare

84

Good for healthcare with self-hosted HIPAA compliance. Basic clinical tasks.

financial analysis

75

Adequate for basic financial tasks. Not suitable for complex modeling.

education

79

Good for educational content. Fast inference suitable for interactive learning.

creative writing

76

Adequate creative writing for typical use cases.