| Signal | Llama Guard 4 12B | Delta | Qwen3 30B A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 50 | -17 | |
Pricing | 0 | 0 | |
Context window size | 83 | +10 | |
Recency | 71 | +0 | |
Output Capacity | 20 | -57 | |
| Overall Result | 2 wins | of 5 | 3 wins |
9
days higher
2
days
19
days higher
Meta
Alibaba
Qwen3 30B A3B saves you $5.00/month
That's $60.00/year compared to Llama Guard 4 12B at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Llama Guard 4 12B | Qwen3 30B A3B | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 40 | 40 | -- |
| Rank | #240 | #241 | Llama Guard 4 12B |
| Quality Rank | #240 | #241 | Llama Guard 4 12B |
| Adoption Rank | #240 | #241 | Llama Guard 4 12B |
| Parameters | 12B | 30B | -- |
| Context Window | 164K | 41K | Llama Guard 4 12B |
| Pricing | $0.18/$0.18/M | $0.08/$0.28/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 50 | 67 | Qwen3 30B A3B |
| Pricing | 0 | 0 | Qwen3 30B A3B |
| Context window size | 83 | 73 | Llama Guard 4 12B |
| Recency | 71 | 71 | Llama Guard 4 12B |
| Output Capacity | 20 | 77 | Qwen3 30B A3B |
Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Here's what the scores mean for these two models:
Scores 40/100 (rank #240), placing it in the top 18% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 40/100 (rank #241), placing it in the top 17% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 0-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.
Both models are priced similarly, so the decision comes down to quality and features rather than cost.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Higher benchmark score (0/100) indicates stronger performance on coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Faster response time (speed score 0/100) is critical for user-facing chat. Llama Guard 4 12B also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (164K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($0.18/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (40/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
Llama Guard 4 12B and Qwen3 30B A3B are extremely close in overall performance (only 0 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.
Best for Quality
Llama Guard 4 12B
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Llama Guard 4 12B
0% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Llama Guard 4 12B
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Llama Guard 4 12B
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Llama Guard 4 12B
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Meta
| Capability | Llama Guard 4 12B | Qwen3 30B A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input)differs | ||
| Function Callingdiffers | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoningdiffers | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Meta
Alibaba
Qwen3 30B A3B saves you $0.0600/month
That's 11% cheaper than Llama Guard 4 12B at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | Llama Guard 4 12B | Qwen3 30B A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 164K | 41K |
| Max Output Tokens | -- | 40,960 |
| Open Source | Yes | Yes |
| Created | Apr 30, 2025 | Apr 28, 2025 |
Both Llama Guard 4 12B and Qwen3 30B A3B score 40/100, making them extremely close competitors. Choose based on pricing, provider ecosystem, or specific capability requirements.
Llama Guard 4 12B is ranked #240 and Qwen3 30B A3B is ranked #241 out of 290+ AI models. Rankings use a composite score combining benchmark performance (90%) from MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations, with capabilities and context window as tiebreakers (10%). Scores update hourly.
Llama Guard 4 12B is cheaper at $0.18/M output tokens vs Qwen3 30B A3B's $0.28/M output tokens - 1.6x more expensive. Input token pricing: Llama Guard 4 12B at $0.18/M vs Qwen3 30B A3B at $0.08/M.
Llama Guard 4 12B has a larger context window of 163,840 tokens compared to Qwen3 30B A3B's 40,960 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.