Prompt Guard 86M vs ShieldGemma 9B
Prompt Guard 86M (2024) and ShieldGemma 9B (2024) are compact production models from AI at Meta and Google DeepMind. Prompt Guard 86M ships a 512-token context window, while ShieldGemma 9B ships a 8K-token context window. This comparison covers specs, pricing, capabilities, benchmarks, provider availability, and production fit. It focuses on practical selection signals rather than broad model-family marketing. The goal is to make the tradeoff clear before deeper testing.
ShieldGemma 9B fits 16x more tokens; pick it for long-context work and Prompt Guard 86M for tighter calls.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Prompt Guard 86M | ShieldGemma 9B |
|---|---|---|
| Decision fit | General | Classification |
| Context window | 512 | 8K |
| Cheapest output | $0.05/1M tokens | - |
| Provider routes | 1 tracked | 1 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 0 rows | 0 rows |
Decision tradeoffs
- Use Prompt Guard 86M when your own prompt tests beat the comparison signals; the local data does not show a decisive standalone advantage yet.
- ShieldGemma 9B has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- Local decision data tags ShieldGemma 9B for Classification.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output prices on this page.
Prompt Guard 86M
$52.50
Cheapest tracked route: Microsoft Foundry
ShieldGemma 9B
Unavailable
No complete token price in local provider data
Cost delta unavailable until both models have sourced input and output token prices.
Switch friction
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Prompt Guard 86M and ShieldGemma 9B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for ShieldGemma 9B and Prompt Guard 86M; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2024-07-23 | 2024-07-01 |
| Context window | 512 | 8K |
| Parameters | 279M | 9B |
| Architecture | decoder only | decoder only |
| License | Unknown | 1 |
| Knowledge cutoff | - | - |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Prompt Guard 86M | ShieldGemma 9B |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.05/1M tokens | - |
| Output price | $0.05/1M tokens | - |
| Providers |
Capabilities
| Capability | Prompt Guard 86M | ShieldGemma 9B |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
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: Prompt Guard 86M has $0.05/1M input tokens and ShieldGemma 9B has no token price sourced yet. Provider availability is 1 tracked routes versus 1. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.
Choose Prompt Guard 86M when provider fit are central to the workload. Choose ShieldGemma 9B when long-context analysis and larger context windows 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
Which has a larger context window, Prompt Guard 86M or ShieldGemma 9B?
ShieldGemma 9B supports 8K tokens, while Prompt Guard 86M supports 512 tokens. That gap matters most for long documents, large codebases, retrieval-heavy agents, and conversations where earlier context must remain visible.
Is Prompt Guard 86M or ShieldGemma 9B open source?
Prompt Guard 86M is listed under Unknown. ShieldGemma 9B is listed under 1. 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 Prompt Guard 86M and ShieldGemma 9B?
Prompt Guard 86M is available on Microsoft Foundry. ShieldGemma 9B is available on NVIDIA NIM. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options. Use this as a quick comparison signal, then confirm the provider-specific limits before committing to production.
When should I pick Prompt Guard 86M over ShieldGemma 9B?
ShieldGemma 9B fits 16x more tokens; pick it for long-context work and Prompt Guard 86M for tighter calls. If your workload also depends on provider fit, start with Prompt Guard 86M; if it depends on long-context analysis, run the same evaluation with ShieldGemma 9B.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-05-16. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.