Apertus 8B vs Ling 3.0 Flash
Ling 3.0 Flash comes out ahead, 65 to 54 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Swiss AI
Apertus 8B
54/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.20
- Context66K
- Our pick
inclusionAILing 3.0 Flash
65/100- ECI—
- Price$0.06 / $0.18
- Context262K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Ling 3.0 Flash is our pick
Ling 3.0 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against Apertus 8B (54). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. 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 priceLing 3.0 FlashLing 3.0 Flash $0.09 · Apertus 8B $0.125 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextLing 3.0 FlashLing 3.0 Flash 262,144 · Apertus 8B 65,536 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsApertus 8B: Text · Ling 3.0 Flash: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Apertus 8B | Ling 3.0 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 89 | 95 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 12 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 54/100 | 65/100 |
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 | Ling 3.0 FlashinclusionAI |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.10 | $0.06 (best) |
| Output | $0.20 | $0.18 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.125 | $0.09 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Median of 7 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 65,536 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 32,768 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | OpenApache-2.0 | OpenMIT |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 1 | 9 (best) |
| Released | Sep 2, 2025 | Jul 23, 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
- Ling 3.0 Flash$0.96
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Apertus 8B or Ling 3.0 Flash?
Ling 3.0 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against Apertus 8B (54). It leads on price, inputs & features and context window. 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 or Ling 3.0 Flash?
Ling 3.0 Flash is cheaper at $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 $0.09 per million tokens for Ling 3.0 Flash versus $0.125 for Apertus 8B (1.4× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Apertus 8B has not been scored yet and Ling 3.0 Flash has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Apertus 8B and Ling 3.0 Flash yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Ling 3.0 Flash has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 65,536 for Apertus 8B. Maximum output per response: Apertus 8B up to 8,192, Ling 3.0 Flash up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Apertus 8B accepts text; Ling 3.0 Flash accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights (Apache-2.0 and MIT), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Ling 3.0 Flash is the newest, released Jul 23, 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.
