Hy-MT2-30B-A3B vs Ling 3.0 Flash Sante vs Gemma 4 12B IT
Gemma 4 12B IT comes out ahead, 70 to 63 and 44 on our weighted score, though Ling 3.0 Flash Sante is 11% cheaper per token.
TencentHy-MT2-30B-A3B
44/100- ECI—
- Price$0.074 / $0.295
- Context8K
inclusionAILing 3.0 Flash Sante
63/100- ECI—
- Price$0.075 / $0.22
- Context262K
- Our pick
GoogleGemma 4 12B IT
70/100- ECI—
- Price$0.075 / $0.275
- Context262K
Gemma 4 12B IT is our pick
Gemma 4 12B IT is the better all-round choice, scoring 70/100 against Ling 3.0 Flash Sante (63) and Hy-MT2-30B-A3B (44). It leads on inputs & features. Ling 3.0 Flash Sante 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 priceLing 3.0 Flash SanteLing 3.0 Flash Sante $0.111 · Gemma 4 12B IT $0.125 · Hy-MT2-30B-A3B $0.129 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextLing 3.0 Flash Sante and Gemma 4 12B ITLing 3.0 Flash Sante 262,144 · Gemma 4 12B IT 262,144 · Hy-MT2-30B-A3B 8,192 tokens
- Widest inputsGemma 4 12B ITHy-MT2-30B-A3B: Text · Ling 3.0 Flash Sante: Text · Gemma 4 12B IT: Text, Images
- Self-hostingHy-MT2-30B-A3B and Gemma 4 12B ITPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Hy-MT2-30B-A3B | Ling 3.0 Flash Sante | Gemma 4 12B IT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 88 | 91 | 89 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 0 | 35 | 60 |
| Context window | 20% | 0 | 37 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 44/100 | 63/100 | 70/100 |
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 | Hy-MT2-30B-A3BTencent | Ling 3.0 Flash SanteinclusionAI | Gemma 4 12B ITGoogle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.074 (best) | $0.075 | $0.075 |
| Output | $0.295 | $0.22 (best) | $0.275 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.129 | $0.111 (best) | $0.125 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 3 providers | Median of 2 providers | Median of 2 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 8,192 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 4,096 tokens | 32,768 tokens (best) | 32,768 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | No | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | — | — | — |
| API providers | 3 (best) | 2 | 2 |
| Released | May 21, 2026 | Sep 4, 2026 | Jun 9, 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.
- Hy-MT2-30B-A3B$1.33
- Ling 3.0 Flash Sante$1.19
- Gemma 4 12B IT$1.30
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Hy-MT2-30B-A3B, Ling 3.0 Flash Sante or Gemma 4 12B IT?
Gemma 4 12B IT is the better all-round choice, scoring 70/100 against Ling 3.0 Flash Sante (63) and Hy-MT2-30B-A3B (44). It leads on inputs & features. Ling 3.0 Flash Sante 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, Hy-MT2-30B-A3B, Ling 3.0 Flash Sante or Gemma 4 12B IT?
Ling 3.0 Flash Sante is cheaper at $0.075 input / $0.22 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers). Gemma 4 12B IT costs $0.075 input / $0.275 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers); Hy-MT2-30B-A3B costs $0.074 input / $0.295 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.111 per million tokens for Ling 3.0 Flash Sante versus $0.125 for Gemma 4 12B IT (1.1× as much) and $0.129 for Hy-MT2-30B-A3B (1.2× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Hy-MT2-30B-A3B has not been scored yet, Ling 3.0 Flash Sante has not been scored yet and Gemma 4 12B IT has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Hy-MT2-30B-A3B, Ling 3.0 Flash Sante and Gemma 4 12B IT yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Hy-MT2-30B-A3B does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Ling 3.0 Flash Sante and Gemma 4 12B IT have the largest context windows (262,144 and 262,144 tokens), against 8,192 for Hy-MT2-30B-A3B. Maximum output per response: Hy-MT2-30B-A3B up to 4,096, Ling 3.0 Flash Sante up to 32,768, Gemma 4 12B IT up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Hy-MT2-30B-A3B accepts text; Ling 3.0 Flash Sante accepts text; Gemma 4 12B IT accepts text and images. Gemma 4 12B IT handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Hy-MT2-30B-A3B and Gemma 4 12B IT publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Ling 3.0 Flash Sante is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Ling 3.0 Flash Sante is the newest, released Sep 4, 2026. Gemma 4 12B IT came out Jun 9, 2026; Hy-MT2-30B-A3B came out May 21, 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.
