Llama Guard 4 12B vs Qwen3.8 Flash

Llama Guard 4 12B costs 2.6x less per output token than Qwen3.8 Flash ($0.18 vs $0.47 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.

Replace Llama Guard 4 12B Replace Qwen3.8 Flash

Llama Guard 4 12BMeta Llama

Coding: No data
Overall: No data
Output $/M: $0.18

Qwen3.8 FlashQwen

Coding: No data
Overall: No data
Output $/M: $0.47

vs $0.18 vs $0.47 per 1M output tokens. Llama Guard 4 12B is 2.6x cheaper.

Llama Guard 4 12B or Qwen3.8 Flash: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Llama Guard 4 12B for output tokens 2.6x cheaper ($0.18 vs $0.47 per million).

Model ALlama Guard 4 12BMeta LlamaNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task Model BQwen3.8 FlashQwenNot benchmarked1 independent benchmarkNo cost per solved task

No benchmark has tested both yet. Llama Guard 4 12B has none yet; Qwen3.8 Flash on LiveBench coding, LiveBench research and LiveBench browser. Compare them on price and context instead.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen3.8 Flash
Qwen3.8 Flash takes 1M tokens against 164K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Llama Guard 4 12B
Llama Guard 4 12B $0.0003, Qwen3.8 Flash $0.0004 per turn.
List prices

At a glance

Coding index: Llama Guard 4 12B not benchmarked, Qwen3.8 Flash not benchmarked.
Widest category: None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
Widest single gap: None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
Output price: Llama Guard 4 12B $0.18 against Qwen3.8 Flash $0.47 per million output tokens, 2.6x apart.
Context window: Llama Guard 4 12B takes 164K tokens, Qwen3.8 Flash 1M.

Benchmark by benchmark

Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.

CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index1 board measured

Coding benchmarks for Llama Guard 4 12B and Qwen3.8 Flash
Benchmark	Llama Guard 4 12B	Qwen3.8 Flash	Leader
LiveBench coding	Not measured	87.4%	Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here

Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards measured

Agentic work benchmarks for Llama Guard 4 12B and Qwen3.8 Flash
Benchmark	Llama Guard 4 12B	Qwen3.8 Flash	Leader
LiveBench research	Not measured	74.6%	Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured
LiveBench browser	Not measured	48.0%	Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured
LiveBench long agentic	Not measured	37.1%	Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here

ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured

Reasoning benchmarks for Llama Guard 4 12B and Qwen3.8 Flash
Benchmark	Llama Guard 4 12B	Qwen3.8 Flash	Leader
LiveBench reasoning	Not measured	87.4%	Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here

Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured

Web design benchmarks for Llama Guard 4 12B and Qwen3.8 Flash
Benchmark	Llama Guard 4 12B	Qwen3.8 Flash	Leader
LiveBench design	Not measured	72.8%	Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here

GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured

General benchmarks for Llama Guard 4 12B and Qwen3.8 Flash
Benchmark	Llama Guard 4 12B	Qwen3.8 Flash	Leader
LiveBench data analysis	Not measured	74.2%	Only Qwen3.8 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 45 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Llama Guard 4 12B$0.0003Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 Flash$0.0004Fits in one request

Llama Guard 4 12B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Llama Guard 4 12B$0.0095Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 Flash$0.0089Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 Flash costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Llama Guard 4 12B$0.038Exceeds the context window

Qwen3.8 Flash$0.035Fits in one request

Qwen3.8 Flash costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Llama Guard 4 12B and Qwen3.8 Flash
Specification	Meta Llama Guard 4 12B	Qwen3.8 Flash
Maker	Meta Llama	Qwen
Weights	Open weights	Open weights
Released	April 30, 2025	August 26, 2026
Context window	164K	1M
Input $/Mtok	$0.18	$0.15
Output $/Mtok	$0.18	$0.47
Coding index	Not benchmarked	Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it	0	1
Cost per solved task	Not computable	Not computable
Source	OpenRouter listing	OpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Llama Guard 4 12B better than Qwen3.8 Flash for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Llama Guard 4 12B for output tokens 2.6x cheaper ($0.18 vs $0.47 per million).

Which is cheaper, Llama Guard 4 12B or Qwen3.8 Flash?

Llama Guard 4 12B costs $0.18 per million input tokens and $0.18 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 Flash costs $0.15 and $0.47. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Llama Guard 4 12B or Qwen3.8 Flash?

Qwen3.8 Flash, with 1M tokens against 164K.

Has any benchmark tested both Llama Guard 4 12B and Qwen3.8 Flash?

No benchmark has tested both yet. Llama Guard 4 12B has none yet; Qwen3.8 Flash on LiveBench coding, LiveBench research and LiveBench browser. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 22, 2026.