Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Ling 3.1 Flash vs Laguna S 2.1
Laguna S 2.1 comes out ahead, 69 to 65 and 65 on our weighted score, though Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 11% cheaper per token.
inclusionAILing 3.0 Flash Fin
65/100- ECI—
- Price$0.075 / $0.22
- Context262K
- inclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
65/100- ECI—
- Price$0.075 / $0.22
- Context262K
- Our pick
PoolsideLaguna S 2.1
69/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.20
- Context1.05M
Laguna S 2.1 is our pick
Laguna S 2.1 is the better all-round choice, scoring 69/100 against Ling 3.0 Flash Fin (65) and Ling 3.1 Flash (65). It leads on 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 Fin and Ling 3.1 FlashLing 3.0 Flash Fin $0.111 · Ling 3.1 Flash $0.111 · Laguna S 2.1 $0.125 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextLaguna S 2.1Laguna S 2.1 1,048,576 · Ling 3.0 Flash Fin 262,144 · Ling 3.1 Flash 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsLing 3.0 Flash Fin: Text · Ling 3.1 Flash: Text · Laguna S 2.1: Text
- Self-hostingLaguna S 2.1Publishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Ling 3.0 Flash Fin | Ling 3.1 Flash | Laguna S 2.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 95 | 95 | 93 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 35 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 37 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 65/100 | 65/100 | 69/100 |
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 3.1 FlashinclusionAI | Laguna S 2.1Poolside |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.075 (best) | $0.075 (best) | $0.10 |
| Output | $0.22 | $0.22 | $0.20 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.111 (best) | $0.111 (best) | $0.125 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Median of 1 providers | Median of 4 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 262,144 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens | 32,768 tokens | 32,768 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | 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 | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | — | — | poolside/laguna-s-2.1 |
| API providers | 2 | 3 | 6 (best) |
| Released | Aug 27, 2026 | Sep 29, 2026 | Jul 21, 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 3.1 Flash$1.19
- Laguna S 2.1$1.40
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Ling 3.0 Flash Fin, Ling 3.1 Flash or Laguna S 2.1?
Laguna S 2.1 is the better all-round choice, scoring 69/100 against Ling 3.0 Flash Fin (65) and Ling 3.1 Flash (65). It leads on 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, Ling 3.1 Flash or Laguna S 2.1?
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is cheaper at $0.075 input / $0.22 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Ling 3.1 Flash costs $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). 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 $0.111 for Ling 3.1 Flash (1× as much) and $0.125 for Laguna S 2.1 (1.1× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin has not been scored yet, Ling 3.1 Flash has not been scored yet and Laguna S 2.1 has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin, Ling 3.1 Flash and Laguna S 2.1 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 Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and 262,144 for Ling 3.1 Flash. Maximum output per response: Ling 3.0 Flash Fin up to 32,768, Ling 3.1 Flash up to 32,768, Laguna S 2.1 up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin accepts text; Ling 3.1 Flash accepts text; Laguna S 2.1 accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Laguna S 2.1 publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and Ling 3.1 Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Ling 3.1 Flash is the newest, released Sep 29, 2026. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin came out Aug 27, 2026; Laguna S 2.1 came out Jul 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 Oct 4, 2026.
