ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Granite-4.0-H-Small vs Ling 3.0 Flash

Ling 3.0 Flash comes out ahead, 65 to 61 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. IBM

    Granite-4.0-H-Small

    Released Oct 2, 2025

    61/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.064 / $0.265
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove Granite-4.0-H-Small
  2. Our pick

    inclusionAI

    Ling 3.0 Flash

    Released Jul 23, 2026

    65/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.06 / $0.18
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Ling 3.0 Flash

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Ling 3.0 Flash is our pick

Ling 3.0 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against Granite-4.0-H-Small (61). It leads on price 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 · Granite-4.0-H-Small $0.114 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextLing 3.0 FlashLing 3.0 Flash 262,144 · Granite-4.0-H-Small 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsSame inputsGranite-4.0-H-Small: Text · Ling 3.0 Flash: Text
  • Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGranite-4.0-H-SmallLing 3.0 Flash
Price50%9195
Inputs & features30%3535
Context window20%2537
Overall100%61/10065/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Granite-4.0-H-Small vs Ling 3.0 Flash specifications side by side
SpecificationGranite-4.0-H-SmallIBMLing 3.0 FlashinclusionAI
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 rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial watsonx.ai APIMedian of 7 providers
Limits
Context window131,072 tokens262,144 tokens (best)
Max output131,072 tokens (best)32,768 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesNoNo
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningNoYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesNo
Availability
WeightsOpenOpenMIT
API model IDibm/granite-4-h-small—
API providers19 (best)
ReleasedOct 2, 2025Jul 23, 2026
Knowledge cutoff——
03 — Cost

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$0.96
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Granite-4.0-H-Small or Ling 3.0 Flash?

Ling 3.0 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against Granite-4.0-H-Small (61). It leads on price 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?

Ling 3.0 Flash 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 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 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 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 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 up to 32,768 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Granite-4.0-H-Small 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 (MIT), so you can self-host them.

Which is newer?

Ling 3.0 Flash is the newest, released Jul 23, 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.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons