uttapen

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Llama Guard 4 12B

Both sit behind the same key and the same code on uttapen — the only thing that changes is the model string, so you can run each of them against your own workload without touching anything else. On cost, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin comes out about 1.5× cheaper.

FeatureLing 3.0 Flash FinLlama Guard 4 12B
ProviderinclusionAIMeta
Model idinclusionai/ling-3.0-flash-finmeta-llama/llama-guard-4-12b
Context262,144 tokens163,840 tokens
Max output235,929 tokens16,384 tokens
Input / 1M tokens17,408 toman52,223 toman
Output / 1M tokens52,223 toman52,223 toman
≈ one 1,000-word request91 toman136 toman
Input caching3,482 toman / 1MNo
Image inputNoYes
File inputNoNo
Tool callingYesNo
JSON outputYesYes
Reasoning modeYesNo

Which one for what?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

  • Multi-step problems, maths, and tracking down a bug
  • Whole documents or a codebase in a single request
  • Agents that call your own APIs and database
  • High-volume work where cost per call decides
91 toman per 1,000 words · Model page

Llama Guard 4 12B

  • Reading screenshots, invoices, and scanned forms
  • High-volume work where cost per call decides
136 toman per 1,000 words · Model page

Run both with the same code

Swap the model value between the two ids and send the same request twice; what each answer cost comes back in the X-Uttapen-Cost-Toman header.

curl https://api.uttapen.ir/v1/chat/completions \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer sk-up-…" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "model": "inclusionai/ling-3.0-flash-fin",
    "messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Introduce yourself in one sentence."}],
    "stream": true
  }'

model = "meta-llama/llama-guard-4-12b"

More comparisons: all pairs · model rankings · full catalogue

base_url = https://api.uttapen.ir/v1