GPT-oss 120B vs Llama 4 Scout
Two open-source budget models, nearly identical pricing — but Llama 4 Scout has 7.8x more context (1M vs 128K). The choice comes down to context window needs.
Pricing data verified: Jun 10, 2026
| Specification | GPT-oss 120B | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| Input Price (per 1M tokens) | $0.15 | $0.18 |
| Output Price (per 1M tokens) | $0.60 | $0.59 |
| Context Window | 128K tokens | 1M tokens |
| Tier | Budget | Budget |
| Provider | OpenAI (via Together.ai) | Meta (via Together.ai) |
| License | Open Source | Open Weights |
| Self-Hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Cost at 1M input + 500K output | $0.45 | $0.475 |
Calculate Your Exact Costs
Enter your usage to see a precise cost comparison for both models.
Which Model for Which Use Case?
Cost Optimization
Both models are priced within 2% of each other — among the cheapest AI models available. GPT-oss 120B edges out a 17% advantage on input tokens, making it slightly better for input-heavy workloads. The difference is marginal at budget pricing.
Long-Document Processing
Llama 4 Scout has a 1M token context window — 7.8x larger than GPT-oss 120B's 128K. For full books, large codebases, or extensive analysis, Llama 4 Scout is the clear choice. You can process more data in a single prompt, reducing total API calls.
Self-Hosting & Flexibility
Both models are open-source/open-weights and available via Together.ai. Both can be self-hosted on your own infrastructure, eliminating API costs entirely. Choose based on your hardware capabilities and context window needs.
High-Volume Chatbot & Coding
For high-volume chatbot or coding workloads with moderate context, GPT-oss 120B offers slightly lower input costs. Both handle coding tasks well. For chatbots that accumulate long conversation history, Llama 4 Scout's 1M context prevents truncation issues.
Need deeper cost analysis?
APIpulse Pro lets you compare all 39 models, save scenarios, and export PDF reports.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is GPT-oss 120B cheaper than Llama 4 Scout?
GPT-oss 120B is slightly cheaper on input tokens. GPT-oss 120B costs $0.15/M input and $0.60/M output. Llama 4 Scout costs $0.18/M input and $0.59/M output. GPT-oss is 17% cheaper on input, while Llama 4 Scout is 2% cheaper on output. For a typical workload of 1M input + 500K output tokens/month, GPT-oss 120B costs $0.45 vs Llama 4 Scout's $0.475 — a negligible $0.025 difference.
What is the biggest difference between GPT-oss 120B and Llama 4 Scout?
The biggest difference is context window size. Llama 4 Scout has a 1M token context window — 7.8x larger than GPT-oss 120B's 128K context. This matters significantly for use cases involving long documents, large codebases, or extensive conversation histories. Both models are open-source and priced similarly, so context window is the primary differentiator.
When should I choose Llama 4 Scout over GPT-oss 120B?
Choose Llama 4 Scout when you need: (1) long-context processing (1M tokens vs 128K), (2) analyzing full books, codebases, or extensive documents in a single prompt, (3) complex multi-turn conversations that accumulate large context. Choose GPT-oss 120B when input token volume is high and you want to minimize input costs, or when your tasks fit comfortably within 128K context.
Are both GPT-oss 120B and Llama 4 Scout open source?
Yes, both are open-weight/open-source models. GPT-oss 120B is OpenAI's open-source offering, and Llama 4 Scout is Meta's latest open-weight model. Both are available via the Together.ai API and can be self-hosted. This makes them excellent choices for teams that want flexibility, transparency, and the option to run models on their own infrastructure to eliminate API costs entirely.