Laguna S 2.1 vs Gemma 4 12B IT vs Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Gemma 4 12B IT comes out ahead, 75 to 69 and 65 on our weighted score, though Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 11% cheaper per token.
PoolsideLaguna S 2.1
69/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.20
- Context1.05M
- Our pick
GoogleGemma 4 12B IT
75/100- ECI—
- Price$0.075 / $0.275
- Context262K
inclusionAILing 3.0 Flash Fin
65/100- ECI—
- Price$0.075 / $0.22
- Context262K
Gemma 4 12B IT is our pick
Gemma 4 12B IT is the better all-round choice, scoring 75/100 against Laguna S 2.1 (69) and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin (65). It leads on inputs & features. Laguna S 2.1 wins on context window. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin 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 FinLing 3.0 Flash Fin $0.111 · Laguna S 2.1 $0.125 · Gemma 4 12B IT $0.125 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextLaguna S 2.1Laguna S 2.1 1,048,576 · Gemma 4 12B IT 262,144 · Ling 3.0 Flash Fin 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsGemma 4 12B ITLaguna S 2.1: Text · Gemma 4 12B IT: Text, Images · Ling 3.0 Flash Fin: Text
- Self-hostingLaguna S 2.1 and Gemma 4 12B ITPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Laguna S 2.1 | Gemma 4 12B IT | Ling 3.0 Flash Fin |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 93 | 93 | 95 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 70 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 61 | 37 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 69/100 | 75/100 | 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 | Laguna S 2.1Poolside | Gemma 4 12B ITGoogle | Ling 3.0 Flash FininclusionAI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.10 | $0.075 (best) | $0.075 (best) |
| Output | $0.20 (best) | $0.275 | $0.22 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.125 | $0.125 | $0.111 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 4 providers | Median of 2 providers | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 1,048,576 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens | 32,768 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 | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | poolside/laguna-s-2.1 | — | — |
| API providers | 6 (best) | 2 | 2 |
| Released | Jul 21, 2026 | Jun 9, 2026 | Aug 27, 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.
- Laguna S 2.1$1.40
- Gemma 4 12B IT$1.30
- Ling 3.0 Flash Fin$1.19
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Laguna S 2.1, Gemma 4 12B IT or Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?
Gemma 4 12B IT is the better all-round choice, scoring 75/100 against Laguna S 2.1 (69) and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin (65). It leads on inputs & features. Laguna S 2.1 wins on context window. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin 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, Laguna S 2.1, Gemma 4 12B IT or Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is cheaper at $0.075 input / $0.22 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Laguna S 2.1 costs $0.10 input / $0.20 output per million tokens (median across 4 API providers; free on Poolside); Gemma 4 12B IT costs $0.075 input / $0.275 output per million tokens (median across 2 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 Fin versus $0.125 for Laguna S 2.1 (1.1× as much) and $0.125 for Gemma 4 12B IT (1.1× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Laguna S 2.1 has not been scored yet, Gemma 4 12B IT has not been scored yet and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Laguna S 2.1, Gemma 4 12B IT and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Laguna S 2.1 has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 262,144 for Gemma 4 12B IT and 262,144 for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin. Maximum output per response: Laguna S 2.1 up to 32,768, Gemma 4 12B IT up to 32,768, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Laguna S 2.1 accepts text; Gemma 4 12B IT accepts text and images; Ling 3.0 Flash Fin accepts text. Gemma 4 12B IT handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Laguna S 2.1 and Gemma 4 12B IT publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is the newest, released Aug 27, 2026. Laguna S 2.1 came out Jul 21, 2026; Gemma 4 12B IT came out Jun 9, 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 Oct 4, 2026.
