GPT-4o Mini wins on coding (65 vs 54) and writing quality and price ($0.15 vs $0.5/1M input). Llama 4 Scout wins on context window (512K vs 128K). For most workflows, GPT-4o Mini is the stronger default — openai's fastest, cheapest option for everyday high-volume tasks.
The shortest way to see the safest default, the lower-cost option, and the specialist pick before you read deeper.
GPT-4o Mini is the safest overall answer here when you want the strongest default instead of the lowest list price.
Switch the scoring lens to see whether the top answer changes when you care more about cost, speed, or long-document work.
OpenAI / Budget / Mar 24, 2026
OpenAI's fastest, cheapest option for everyday high-volume tasks.
Ranks models by the broadest mix of coding, writing, research, and long-context usefulness.
You need strong reasoning or coding — GPT-5.2 Mini or DeepSeek V3 are better at similar or lower cost.
The fastest way to see where the recommendation shifts when your priority changes.
Extremely low cost at $0.15/1M input — among the cheapest OpenAI models
Very fast response times suitable for interactive user-facing apps
Strong enough for most writing, summarisation, and classification tasks
Noticeably weaker than GPT-5.2 Mini on complex reasoning and multi-step tasks
Not suitable for hard coding challenges or deep document research
UseRightAI recommendations are based on practical decision factors people actually feel in day-to-day use.
Newsletter
Useful if you care about ranking shifts, pricing changes, or a better recommendation appearing in this decision path.
No spam. Useful updates only. Affiliate disclosures always clearly labeled.
GPT-4o Mini wins on more categories — writing, coding, budget. Llama 4 Scout is the better pick when affordable self-hosted long-context workflows and analysis pipelines. The right choice depends on your specific use case.
GPT-4o Mini is cheaper at $0.15/1M input and $0.6/1M output. Llama 4 Scout costs $0.5/1M input and $1.2/1M output.
Llama 4 Scout has the larger context window at 512K tokens vs GPT-4o Mini's 128K. For large document analysis, Llama 4 Scout is the stronger pick.
GPT-4o Mini is better for coding with a score of 65 vs Llama 4 Scout's 54. For the highest coding quality available, Claude Sonnet 4.6 (79.6% SWE-bench) or Opus 4.6 (80.8%) remain benchmarks.
GPT-4o Mini is faster with a very fast speed rating (score: 5) vs Llama 4 Scout's fast rating (score: 4).
Meta: Llama 3.1 8B Instruct is the lower-cost option to start with when you still need useful output at scale.
Llama 4 Scout is the better pick when response speed matters more than maximum reasoning depth.
GPT-4o Mini leads on coding with a score of 65 vs 54 for Llama 4 Scout.
Llama 4 Scout has the larger context window: 512K vs 128K for GPT-4o Mini.
GPT-4o Mini is cheaper at $0.15/1M input tokens vs $0.5/1M for Llama 4 Scout.
Choose GPT-4o Mini for writing and coding — high-volume everyday tasks where gpt-4o quality is overkill.
Choose Llama 4 Scout when affordable self-hosted long-context workflows and analysis pipelines.
Both models serve different primary workflows — consider using each where it has a clear edge.
DeepSeek V3 now offers better coding quality at comparable pricing
