Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Ling-1T
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin comes out ahead, 65 to 37 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
inclusionAILing 3.0 Flash Fin
65/100- ECI—
- Price$0.075 / $0.22
- Context262K
- inclusionAI
Ling-1T
37/100- ECI—
- Price$0.57 / $2.29
- Context128K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is our pick
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against Ling-1T (37). 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 FinLing 3.0 Flash Fin $0.111 · Ling-1T $1.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextLing 3.0 Flash FinLing 3.0 Flash Fin 262,144 · Ling-1T 128,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsLing 3.0 Flash Fin: Text · Ling-1T: Text
- Self-hostingLing-1TPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Ling 3.0 Flash Fin | Ling-1T |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 95 | 50 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 65/100 | 37/100 |
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 | Ling 3.0 Flash FininclusionAI | Ling-1TinclusionAI |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.075 (best) | $0.57 |
| Output | $0.22 (best) | $2.29 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.111 (best) | $1.00 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Official Bailing API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens (best) | 128,000 tokens |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens (best) | 32,000 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | — | Ling-1T |
| API providers | 2 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Aug 27, 2026 | Oct 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Jun 2024 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Ling 3.0 Flash Fin$1.19
- Ling-1T$10.28
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Ling 3.0 Flash Fin or Ling-1T?
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is the better all-round choice, scoring 65/100 against Ling-1T (37). 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, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin or Ling-1T?
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is cheaper at $0.075 input / $0.22 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Ling-1T costs $0.57 input / $2.29 output per million tokens (official Bailing API price). 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 $1.00 for Ling-1T (9× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin has not been scored yet and Ling-1T has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and Ling-1T 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 Fin has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 128,000 for Ling-1T. Maximum output per response: Ling 3.0 Flash Fin up to 32,768, Ling-1T up to 32,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin accepts text; Ling-1T accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Ling-1T 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. Ling-1T came out Oct 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Ling-1T Jun 2024.
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.
Related comparisons
- Add Laguna S 2.1Three-way comparison
- Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Laguna S 2.1Poolside
- Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3BNVIDIA
- Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Gemma 4 12B ITGoogle
- Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Mercury 2.5Inception
- Ling-1T vs GLM-4.6Z.ai (Zhipu)
- Ling-1T vs Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B InstructAlibaba (Qwen)
