Llama Guard 4 12B vs Qwen3 Coder Flash
Updated October 21, 2026. No benchmark has tested both models yet. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.18
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.975
Decision reading
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Llama Guard 4 12B has the edge where output tokens cost 5.4x less.
No benchmark has tested either model yet, so price and context are the only way to compare them.
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 Coder Flash
Qwen3 Coder 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 Coder Flash $0.0007 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Llama Guard 4 12B not benchmarked, Qwen3 Coder 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 Coder Flash $0.975 per million output tokens, 5.4x apart.
- Context window
- Llama Guard 4 12B takes 164K tokens, Qwen3 Coder 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.
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 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Llama Guard 4 12B costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Llama Guard 4 12B 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.
| Specification | Meta Llama Guard 4 12B | Qwen3 Coder Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Meta Llama | Qwen |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | April 30, 2025 | September 17, 2025 |
| Context window | 164K | 1M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.18 | $0.195 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.18 | $0.975 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Llama Guard 4 12B better than Qwen3 Coder Flash for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Llama Guard 4 12B has the edge where output tokens cost 5.4x less.
Which is cheaper, Llama Guard 4 12B or Qwen3 Coder Flash?
Llama Guard 4 12B costs $0.18 per million input tokens and $0.18 per million output tokens; Qwen3 Coder Flash costs $0.195 and $0.975. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Llama Guard 4 12B or Qwen3 Coder Flash?
Qwen3 Coder Flash, with 1M tokens against 164K.
Has any benchmark tested both Llama Guard 4 12B and Qwen3 Coder Flash?
No benchmark has tested either model yet, so price and context are the only way to compare them. Data as of October 21, 2026.