Llama 4 vs North Mini Code
Pricing, benchmarks, and use case comparison
Quick take
- •Llama 4 is meaningfully stronger at multimodal (82 vs 5 on our capability index).
- •North Mini Code is meaningfully stronger at speed (88 vs 72).
- •Llama 4 is open-weights (free to self-host); North Mini Code is paid API only.
- •Llama 4 has a Up to 10M tokens (Scout); ~1M tokens (Maverick) context window vs 256K tokens - better for whole-repo or long-document work.
Specs comparison
| Llama 4 | North Mini Code | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Cohere |
| Type | Open source | Closed source |
| Context window | ✓Up to 10M tokens (Scout); ~1M tokens (Maverick) | 256K tokens |
| Input / 1M tokens | ✓Free (self-host) | 0 |
| Output / 1M tokens | Free (self-host) | 0 |
| Release date | 2025-04 | 2026-06 |
Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Llama 4 | North Mini Code |
|---|---|---|
| Scout context window | 10M tokens | - |
| Scout size | 17B active / 109B total (16 experts) | - |
| Maverick size | 17B active / 400B total (128 experts) | - |
| Artificial Analysis Coding Index | - | 33.4 |
| Throughput vs Devstral Small 2 | - | Up to 2.8x higher output throughput |
Scores sourced from official provider release posts and independent benchmark aggregators.
Which should you choose?
Choose Llama 4 if...
- →You need extremely long context in an open model (Scout's 10M window)
- →Self-hosted or on-prem multimodal deployment
- →You want an efficient MoE that activates few parameters per token
- →Fine-tuning or full control over the model
Choose North Mini Code if...
- →You want a self-hostable, sovereign coding agent on modest hardware
- →You run agentic SWE workflows (repo edits, sub-agent orchestration, code review)
- →You need terminal/tool-driven multi-turn agents
- →You want high coding throughput at low compute cost