Code Cushman 002 vs Llama Guard 3 1B
Code Cushman 002 (2021) and Llama Guard 3 1B (2024) compare a coding-specialized model against a standalone API model. Code Cushman 002 ships a not-yet-sourced context window, while Llama Guard 3 1B ships a 128k-token context window. This page treats the result as workflow and deployment fit, not a universal model winner.
Treat this as a product-type comparison: Code Cushman 002 is coding-specialized model, while Llama Guard 3 1B is standalone API model. Choose based on workflow fit before reading any benchmark or price row as decisive.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Code Cushman 002 | Llama Guard 3 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Product type | Coding-specialized model | Standalone API model |
| Best for | custom coding agents and code generation | general production evaluation |
| Decision fit | Coding | Long context and Classification |
| Context window | — | 128k |
| Cheapest output | - | $0.10/1M tokens |
| Provider routes | 0 tracked | 1 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 0 rows | 0 rows |
Decision tradeoffs
- Local decision data tags Code Cushman 002 for Coding.
- Llama Guard 3 1B has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- Llama Guard 3 1B has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
- Local decision data tags Llama Guard 3 1B for Long context and Classification.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.
Code Cushman 002
Unavailable
No complete token price in local provider data
Llama Guard 3 1B
$105
Cheapest tracked route/tier: Fireworks AI
Cost delta unavailable until both models have sourced input and output token prices.
Switch friction
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Code Cushman 002 and Llama Guard 3 1B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Llama Guard 3 1B and Code Cushman 002; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2021-11-15 | 2024-09-25 |
| Context window | — | 128k |
| Parameters | — | 1B |
| Architecture | decoder only | decoder only |
| License | Proprietary | Llama 2 Community |
| Openness | Proprietary | Open weights |
| Commercial use | Commercial use with conditions | Commercial use with conditions |
| Knowledge cutoff | - | 2023-12 |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Code Cushman 002 | Llama Guard 3 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | - | $0.10/1M tokens |
| Output price | - | $0.10/1M tokens |
| Providers | - |
Capabilities
| Capability | Code Cushman 002 | Llama Guard 3 1B |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | No | No |
| Multimodal | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Function calling | No | No |
| Tool use | No | No |
| Structured outputs | No | No |
| Code execution | No | No |
| IDE integration | No | No |
| Computer use | No | No |
| Parallel agents | No | No |
Benchmarks
No shared benchmark rows are currently sourced for this pair.
Deep dive
The capability footprint is close: both models cover the core production surface. That makes context budget, benchmark fit, and provider maturity more important than a simple checklist. If your application depends on one integration detail, verify it against the provider route you plan to use, not just the base model listing.
Pricing coverage is uneven: Code Cushman 002 has no token price sourced yet and Llama Guard 3 1B has $0.10/1M input tokens. Provider availability is 0 tracked routes versus 1. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.
Choose Code Cushman 002 when coding workflow support are central to the workload. Choose Llama Guard 3 1B when provider fit and broader provider choice are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship. This keeps the decision grounded in measurable tradeoffs instead of brand-level assumptions. It also helps separate model capability from provider packaging, which can change cost and latency. For teams standardizing a stack, that distinction is often the difference between a benchmark win and a reliable deployment.
FAQ
Is Code Cushman 002 or Llama Guard 3 1B open source?
Code Cushman 002 is listed under Proprietary. Llama Guard 3 1B is listed under Llama 2 Community. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.
Where can I run Code Cushman 002 and Llama Guard 3 1B?
Code Cushman 002 is available on the tracked providers still being sourced. Llama Guard 3 1B is available on Fireworks AI. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
When should I pick Code Cushman 002 over Llama Guard 3 1B?
Treat this as a product-type comparison: Code Cushman 002 is coding-specialized model, while Llama Guard 3 1B is standalone API model. Choose based on workflow fit before reading any benchmark or price row as decisive. If your workload also depends on coding workflow support, start with Code Cushman 002; if it depends on provider fit, run the same evaluation with Llama Guard 3 1B.
What is the main difference between Code Cushman 002 and Llama Guard 3 1B?
Code Cushman 002 and Llama Guard 3 1B differ most on context, provider coverage, capabilities, or pricing depending on the data currently sourced. Use the specs table first, then validate the model behavior with your own prompts.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-05-19. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.