LLM Reference

Llama Guard 4 12B vs Sarvam 30B

Llama Guard 4 12B (2025) and Sarvam 30B (2026) are compact production models from AI at Meta and Sarvam.ai. Llama Guard 4 12B ships a 164k-token context window, while Sarvam 30B ships a 66k-token context window. This comparison covers specs, pricing, API access, capabilities, benchmarks, input and output token costs, and production fit for coding and agent workloads. It focuses on practical selection signals rather than broad model-family marketing.

Sarvam 30B is safer overall; choose Llama Guard 4 12B when long-context analysis matters.

Decision scorecard

Local evidence first
SignalLlama Guard 4 12BSarvam 30B
Best forprovider-routed productiontool-calling agents
Decision fitRAG, Long context, and ClassificationAgents and JSON / Tool use
Context window164k66k
Cheapest output$0.18/1M tokens-
Provider routes3 tracked0 tracked
Shared benchmarks0 rows0 rows

Decision tradeoffs

Choose Llama Guard 4 12B when...
  • Llama Guard 4 12B has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
  • Llama Guard 4 12B has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
  • Llama Guard 4 12B uniquely exposes Structured outputs in local model data.
  • Local decision data tags Llama Guard 4 12B for RAG, Long context, and Classification.
Choose Sarvam 30B when...
  • Sarvam 30B uniquely exposes Function calling and Tool use in local model data.
  • Local decision data tags Sarvam 30B for Agents and JSON / Tool use.

Monthly cost at traffic

Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.

Llama Guard 4 12B

$189

Cheapest tracked route/tier: OpenRouter

Sarvam 30B

Unavailable

No complete token price in local provider data

Cost delta unavailable until both models have sourced input and output token prices.

Switch friction

Llama Guard 4 12B -> Sarvam 30B
  • No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Llama Guard 4 12B and Sarvam 30B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
  • Check replacement coverage for Structured outputs before moving production traffic.
  • Sarvam 30B adds Function calling and Tool use in local capability data.
Sarvam 30B -> Llama Guard 4 12B
  • No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Sarvam 30B and Llama Guard 4 12B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
  • Check replacement coverage for Function calling and Tool use before moving production traffic.
  • Llama Guard 4 12B adds Structured outputs in local capability data.

Specs

Specification
Released2025-04-052026-03-22
Context window164k66k
Parameters12B30B (2.4B active)
Architecturedecoder onlymoe
LicenseLlama 2 CommunityApache 2.0(OSI)
OpennessOpen weightsOpen source
Commercial useCommercial use with conditionsCommercial use allowed
Knowledge cutoff2024-082025-06

Pricing and availability

Pricing attributeLlama Guard 4 12BSarvam 30B
Input price$0.18/1M tokens-
Output price$0.18/1M tokens-
Providers-

Capabilities

CapabilityLlama Guard 4 12BSarvam 30B
VisionNoNo
MultimodalNoNo
ReasoningNoNo
Function callingNoYes
Tool useNoYes
Structured outputsYesNo
Code executionNoNo
IDE integrationNoNo
Computer useNoNo
Parallel agentsNoNo

Benchmarks

No shared benchmark rows are currently sourced for this pair.

Deep dive

The capability footprint differs most on function calling: Sarvam 30B, tool use: Sarvam 30B, and structured outputs: Llama Guard 4 12B. Both models share the core language-model surface, so the practical split is not just feature count. Use those differences to decide whether the page is about raw model quality, agentic coding support, multimodal ingestion, or predictable structured API behavior.

Pricing coverage is uneven: Llama Guard 4 12B has $0.18/1M input tokens and Sarvam 30B has no token price sourced yet. Provider availability is 3 tracked routes versus 0. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.

Choose Llama Guard 4 12B when long-context analysis, larger context windows, and broader provider choice are central to the workload. Choose Sarvam 30B when provider fit 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.

FAQ

Which has a larger context window, Llama Guard 4 12B or Sarvam 30B?

Llama Guard 4 12B supports 164k tokens, while Sarvam 30B supports 66k tokens. That gap matters most for long documents, large codebases, retrieval-heavy agents, and conversations where earlier context must remain visible.

Is Llama Guard 4 12B or Sarvam 30B open source?

Llama Guard 4 12B is listed under Llama 2 Community. Sarvam 30B is listed under Apache 2.0. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.

Which is better for function calling, Llama Guard 4 12B or Sarvam 30B?

Sarvam 30B has the clearer documented function calling signal in this comparison. If function calling is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.

Which is better for tool use, Llama Guard 4 12B or Sarvam 30B?

Sarvam 30B has the clearer documented tool use signal in this comparison. If tool use is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.

Which is better for structured outputs, Llama Guard 4 12B or Sarvam 30B?

Llama Guard 4 12B has the clearer documented structured outputs signal in this comparison. If structured outputs is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.

Where can I run Llama Guard 4 12B and Sarvam 30B?

Llama Guard 4 12B is available on NVIDIA NIM, Replicate API, and OpenRouter. Sarvam 30B is available on the tracked providers still being sourced. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.

Continue comparing

Last reviewed: 2026-05-22. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.