AllocateDeepseek V3.1 NVFP4 vs Llama 4 Scout
On provider list prices, Llama 4 Scout costs $0.18 per million input tokens against $0.60 for Deepseek V3.1 NVFP4: 3.3x apart. Output is $0.59 against $1.70 (2.9x). On Allocate both bill at list plus the 7% transaction fee.
Deepseek V3.1 NVFP4
Llama 4 ScoutSpecifications and provider list prices from the Allocate catalog, checked 2026-07-08. Billed price is list plus the 7% transaction fee.
What the numbers say
Take 1,000,000 requests a month at 1,200 input and 350 output tokens each. That workload costs $422.50 a month on Llama 4 Scout and $1,315 on Deepseek V3.1 NVFP4 at list: a gap of $892.50, or 3.1x.
Llama 4 Scout reads 1M tokens per request against 128K for Deepseek V3.1 NVFP4, 8.0x the window. That decides which one can take whole documents without splitting them.
Choose Deepseek V3.1 NVFP4 for
- Fine-tuning under a permissive license (MIT)
Choose Llama 4 Scout for
- Whole-document reasoning
- High-volume extraction
- Fine-tuning under the Llama 4 license
Common questions
Which is cheaper, Deepseek V3.1 NVFP4 or Llama 4 Scout?
Llama 4 Scout, on this workload shape. At list prices it is $0.18/$0.59 per million tokens in and out against $0.60/$1.70 for Deepseek V3.1 NVFP4. Billed on Allocate: $0.19/$0.63 against $0.64/$1.82, list plus 7%.
Which has the bigger context window?
Llama 4 Scout: 1,048,576 tokens (1M) against 131,072 (128K) for Deepseek V3.1 NVFP4.
Can I fine-tune Deepseek V3.1 NVFP4 or Llama 4 Scout?
Both publish open weights (Deepseek V3.1 NVFP4: MIT; Llama 4 Scout: Llama community), so both can be fine-tuned. On Allocate the trained weights stay inside your boundary and belong to you.
Related comparisons
Run the numbers on your workload
Or don’t choose. On Allocate a route name is the contract: point yours at one model today, swap to the other tomorrow, and compare them on your live traffic with per-token metering.