Apertus 8B vs Granite 4.2 8B vs Ling 3.0 Flash VL
Ling 3.0 Flash VL comes out ahead, 76 to 64 and 54 on our weighted score, though Granite 4.2 8B is 8% cheaper per token.
Swiss AI
Apertus 8B
54/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.20
- Context66K
IBMGranite 4.2 8B
64/100- ECI—
- Price$0.06 / $0.15
- Context131K
- Our pick
inclusionAILing 3.0 Flash VL
76/100- ECI—
- Price$0.06 / $0.18
- Context262K
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is our pick
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is the better all-round choice, scoring 76/100 against Granite 4.2 8B (64) and Apertus 8B (54). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Granite 4.2 8B wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceGranite 4.2 8BGranite 4.2 8B $0.083 · Ling 3.0 Flash VL $0.09 · Apertus 8B $0.125 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextLing 3.0 Flash VLLing 3.0 Flash VL 262,144 · Granite 4.2 8B 131,072 · Apertus 8B 65,536 tokens
- Widest inputsLing 3.0 Flash VLApertus 8B: Text · Granite 4.2 8B: Text · Ling 3.0 Flash VL: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Apertus 8B | Granite 4.2 8B | Ling 3.0 Flash VL |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 89 | 97 | 95 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 35 | 70 |
| Context window | 20% | 12 | 25 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 54/100 | 64/100 | 76/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Apertus 8BSwiss AI | Granite 4.2 8BIBM | Ling 3.0 Flash VLinclusionAI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.10 | $0.06 (best) | $0.06 (best) |
| Output | $0.20 | $0.15 (best) | $0.18 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.125 | $0.083 (best) | $0.09 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Median of 7 providers | Median of 7 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 65,536 tokens | 131,072 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 117,964 tokens (best) | 32,768 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | No | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | OpenApache-2.0 | Open | OpenMIT |
| API model ID | — | — | — |
| API providers | 1 | 7 (best) | 7 (best) |
| Released | Sep 2, 2025 | Aug 25, 2026 | Sep 10, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Sep 2025 | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Apertus 8B$1.40
- Granite 4.2 8B$0.90
- Ling 3.0 Flash VL$0.96
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Apertus 8B, Granite 4.2 8B or Ling 3.0 Flash VL?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is the better all-round choice, scoring 76/100 against Granite 4.2 8B (64) and Apertus 8B (54). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Granite 4.2 8B wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Apertus 8B, Granite 4.2 8B or Ling 3.0 Flash VL?
Granite 4.2 8B is cheaper at $0.06 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (median across 7 API providers). Ling 3.0 Flash VL costs $0.06 input / $0.18 output per million tokens (median across 7 API providers); Apertus 8B costs $0.10 input / $0.20 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.083 per million tokens for Granite 4.2 8B versus $0.09 for Ling 3.0 Flash VL (1.1× as much) and $0.125 for Apertus 8B (1.5× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Apertus 8B has not been scored yet, Granite 4.2 8B has not been scored yet and Ling 3.0 Flash VL has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Apertus 8B, Granite 4.2 8B and Ling 3.0 Flash VL yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 131,072 for Granite 4.2 8B and 65,536 for Apertus 8B. Maximum output per response: Apertus 8B up to 8,192, Granite 4.2 8B up to 117,964, Ling 3.0 Flash VL up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Apertus 8B accepts text; Granite 4.2 8B accepts text; Ling 3.0 Flash VL accepts text, images and video. Ling 3.0 Flash VL handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, all three publish their weights (Apache-2.0 and MIT), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is the newest, released Sep 10, 2026. Granite 4.2 8B came out Aug 25, 2026; Apertus 8B came out Sep 2, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Apertus 8B Sep 2025.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.
