Beam 1.0 501B A23B vs LightOnOCR-3 0.8B vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Beam 1.0 501B A23B comes out ahead, 45 to 36 and 30 on our weighted score, though Ling 3.1 Flash is 5% cheaper per token.
- Our pick
Reflection AIBeam 1.0 501B A23B
45/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $1.00
- Context1.05M
LightOn
LightOnOCR-3 0.8B
30/100- ECI—
- Price—
- Context262K
inclusionAILing 3.1 Flash
36/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $0.90
- Context262K
Beam 1.0 501B A23B is our pick
Beam 1.0 501B A23B is the better all-round choice, scoring 45/100 against Ling 3.1 Flash (36) and LightOnOCR-3 0.8B (30). It leads on context window. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. 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 3.1 FlashLing 3.1 Flash $0.45 · Beam 1.0 501B A23B $0.475 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · LightOnOCR-3 0.8B unpriced
- Longest contextBeam 1.0 501B A23BBeam 1.0 501B A23B 1,048,576 · LightOnOCR-3 0.8B 262,144 · Ling 3.1 Flash 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsLightOnOCR-3 0.8BBeam 1.0 501B A23B: Text · LightOnOCR-3 0.8B: Text, Images · Ling 3.1 Flash: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Beam 1.0 501B A23B | LightOnOCR-3 0.8B | Ling 3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inputs & features | 60% | 35 | 25 | 35 |
| Context window | 40% | 61 | 37 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 45/100 | 30/100 | 36/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability and price. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Beam 1.0 501B A23BReflection AI | LightOnOCR-3 0.8BLightOn | Ling 3.1 FlashinclusionAI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.30 | — | $0.30 |
| Output | $1.00 | — | $0.90 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.475 | — | $0.45 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | — | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 7 providers | — | Median of 5 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens (best) | 16,384 tokens | 32,768 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | No | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | OpenApache-2.0 | Openapache-2.0 | Open |
| API model ID | — | — | — |
| API providers | 12 (best) | 1 | 7 |
| Released | Oct 5, 2026 | Oct 8, 2026 | Sep 29, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jun 30, 2026 | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Beam 1.0 501B A23B$5.00
- LightOnOCR-3 0.8B—
- Ling 3.1 Flash$4.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Beam 1.0 501B A23B, LightOnOCR-3 0.8B or Ling 3.1 Flash?
Beam 1.0 501B A23B is the better all-round choice, scoring 45/100 against Ling 3.1 Flash (36) and LightOnOCR-3 0.8B (30). It leads on context window. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Beam 1.0 501B A23B, LightOnOCR-3 0.8B or Ling 3.1 Flash?
Ling 3.1 Flash is cheaper at $0.30 input / $0.90 output per million tokens (median across 5 API providers). Beam 1.0 501B A23B costs $0.30 input / $1.00 output per million tokens (median across 7 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.45 per million tokens for Ling 3.1 Flash versus $0.475 for Beam 1.0 501B A23B (1.1× as much). LightOnOCR-3 0.8B has no published per-token price.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Beam 1.0 501B A23B has not been scored yet, LightOnOCR-3 0.8B has not been scored yet and Ling 3.1 Flash has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Beam 1.0 501B A23B, LightOnOCR-3 0.8B and Ling 3.1 Flash yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that LightOnOCR-3 0.8B does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Beam 1.0 501B A23B has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 262,144 for LightOnOCR-3 0.8B and 262,144 for Ling 3.1 Flash. Maximum output per response: Beam 1.0 501B A23B up to 131,072, LightOnOCR-3 0.8B up to 16,384, Ling 3.1 Flash up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Beam 1.0 501B A23B accepts text; LightOnOCR-3 0.8B accepts text and images; Ling 3.1 Flash accepts text. LightOnOCR-3 0.8B handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, all three publish their weights (Apache-2.0 and apache-2.0), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
LightOnOCR-3 0.8B is the newest, released Oct 8, 2026. Beam 1.0 501B A23B came out Oct 5, 2026; Ling 3.1 Flash came out Sep 29, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Beam 1.0 501B A23B Jun 30, 2026.
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.
