Granite-4.0-H-Small vs Ling 3.0 Flash VL
Ling 3.0 Flash VL comes out ahead, 76 to 61 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
IBMGranite-4.0-H-Small
61/100- ECI—
- Price$0.064 / $0.265
- Context131K
- Our pick
inclusionAILing 3.0 Flash VL
76/100- ECI—
- Price$0.06 / $0.18
- Context262K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is our pick
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is the better all-round choice, scoring 76/100 against Granite-4.0-H-Small (61). 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 Flash VLLing 3.0 Flash VL $0.09 · Granite-4.0-H-Small $0.114 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextLing 3.0 Flash VLLing 3.0 Flash VL 262,144 · Granite-4.0-H-Small 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsLing 3.0 Flash VLGranite-4.0-H-Small: 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 | Granite-4.0-H-Small | Ling 3.0 Flash VL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 91 | 95 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 70 |
| Context window | 20% | 25 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 61/100 | 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 | Granite-4.0-H-SmallIBM | Ling 3.0 Flash VLinclusionAI |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.064 | $0.06 (best) |
| Output | $0.265 | $0.18 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.114 | $0.09 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official watsonx.ai API | Median of 7 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 131,072 tokens (best) | 32,768 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | OpenMIT |
| API model ID | ibm/granite-4-h-small | — |
| API providers | 1 | 7 (best) |
| Released | Oct 2, 2025 | Sep 10, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Granite-4.0-H-Small$1.17
- Ling 3.0 Flash VL$0.96
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Granite-4.0-H-Small or Ling 3.0 Flash VL?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is the better all-round choice, scoring 76/100 against Granite-4.0-H-Small (61). 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, Granite-4.0-H-Small or Ling 3.0 Flash VL?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is cheaper at $0.06 input / $0.18 output per million tokens (median across 7 API providers). Granite-4.0-H-Small costs $0.064 input / $0.265 output per million tokens (official watsonx.ai API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.09 per million tokens for Ling 3.0 Flash VL versus $0.114 for Granite-4.0-H-Small (1.3× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Granite-4.0-H-Small 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 Granite-4.0-H-Small 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. Both 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-4.0-H-Small. Maximum output per response: Granite-4.0-H-Small up to 131,072, Ling 3.0 Flash VL up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Granite-4.0-H-Small 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, both publish their weights (MIT), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is the newest, released Sep 10, 2026. Granite-4.0-H-Small came out Oct 2, 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.
Related comparisons
- Add Apertus 8BThree-way comparison
- Granite-4.0-H-Small vs Apertus 8BSwiss AI
- Granite-4.0-H-Small vs Nemotron Nano 9B v2NVIDIA
- Granite-4.0-H-Small vs Ministral 3 3BMistral AI
- Granite-4.0-H-Small vs ERNIE 4.5 21B A3BBaidu
- Ling 3.0 Flash VL vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3BNVIDIA
- Ling 3.0 Flash VL vs Granite 4.2 8BIBM
