Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Ling 3.0 Flash VL
Ling 3.0 Flash VL comes out ahead, 76 to 63 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
inclusionAILing 3.0 Flash Fin
63/100- ECI—
- Price$0.075 / $0.22
- Context262K
- Our pickinclusionAI
Ling 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 Ling 3.0 Flash Fin (63). It leads on price and inputs & features. 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 · Ling 3.0 Flash Fin $0.111 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextAbout the sameLing 3.0 Flash Fin 262,144 · Ling 3.0 Flash VL 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsLing 3.0 Flash VLLing 3.0 Flash Fin: 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 | Ling 3.0 Flash Fin | Ling 3.0 Flash VL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 91 | 95 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 70 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 63/100 | 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 | Ling 3.0 Flash FininclusionAI | Ling 3.0 Flash VLinclusionAI |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.075 | $0.06 (best) |
| Output | $0.22 | $0.18 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.111 | $0.09 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 2 providers | Median of 7 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens | 32,768 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | OpenMIT | OpenMIT |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 3 | 7 (best) |
| Released | Aug 27, 2026 | 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.
- Ling 3.0 Flash Fin$1.19
- Ling 3.0 Flash VL$0.96
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Ling 3.0 Flash Fin or Ling 3.0 Flash VL?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is the better all-round choice, scoring 76/100 against Ling 3.0 Flash Fin (63). It leads on price and inputs & features. 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 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). Ling 3.0 Flash Fin costs $0.075 input / $0.22 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers). 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 $0.111 for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin (1.2× 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 3.0 Flash VL 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 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 Fin and Ling 3.0 Flash VL share the same 262,144-token context window. Maximum output per response: Ling 3.0 Flash Fin up to 32,768, Ling 3.0 Flash VL up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin 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. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin came out Aug 27, 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.
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 Granite 4.2 8BIBM
- Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Gemma 4 12B ITGoogle
- Ling 3.0 Flash VL vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3BNVIDIA
- Ling 3.0 Flash VL vs Granite 4.2 8BIBM
