ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Ling 3.0 Flash Sante vs Granite 4.2 8B

Too close to call on our weighted score (Granite 4.2 8B 64, Ling 3.0 Flash Sante 63). The right pick depends on what you value most.

  1. inclusionAI

    Ling 3.0 Flash Sante

    Released Sep 4, 2026New

    63/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.075 / $0.22
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Ling 3.0 Flash Sante

  2. IBM

    Granite 4.2 8B

    Released Aug 25, 2026

    64/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.06 / $0.15
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove Granite 4.2 8B

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Too close to call

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Granite 4.2 8B 64/100, Ling 3.0 Flash Sante 63/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Granite 4.2 8B on price and Ling 3.0 Flash Sante for long inputs. 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 priceGranite 4.2 8BGranite 4.2 8B $0.083 · Ling 3.0 Flash Sante $0.111 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextLing 3.0 Flash SanteLing 3.0 Flash Sante 262,144 · Granite 4.2 8B 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsSame inputsLing 3.0 Flash Sante: Text · Granite 4.2 8B: Text
  • Self-hostingGranite 4.2 8BPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightLing 3.0 Flash SanteGranite 4.2 8B
Price50%9197
Inputs & features30%3535
Context window20%3725
Overall100%63/10064/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Ling 3.0 Flash Sante vs Granite 4.2 8B specifications side by side
SpecificationLing 3.0 Flash SanteinclusionAIGranite 4.2 8BIBM
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)——
ECI rank——
Price per million tokens
Input$0.075$0.06 (best)
Output$0.22$0.15 (best)
Cached input——
Blended (3:1)$0.111$0.083 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 2 providersMedian of 7 providers
Limits
Context window262,144 tokens (best)131,072 tokens
Max output32,768 tokens117,964 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesNoNo
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpen
API model ID——
API providers27 (best)
ReleasedSep 4, 2026Aug 25, 2026
Knowledge cutoff——
03 — Cost

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 Sante$1.19
  • Granite 4.2 8B$0.90
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Ling 3.0 Flash Sante or Granite 4.2 8B?

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Granite 4.2 8B 64/100, Ling 3.0 Flash Sante 63/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Granite 4.2 8B on price and Ling 3.0 Flash Sante for long inputs. 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 Sante or Granite 4.2 8B?

Granite 4.2 8B is cheaper at $0.06 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (median across 7 API providers). Ling 3.0 Flash Sante 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 $0.083 per million tokens for Granite 4.2 8B versus $0.111 for Ling 3.0 Flash Sante (1.3× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Ling 3.0 Flash Sante has not been scored yet and Granite 4.2 8B has not been scored yet.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Ling 3.0 Flash Sante and Granite 4.2 8B 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 Sante has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 131,072 for Granite 4.2 8B. Maximum output per response: Ling 3.0 Flash Sante up to 32,768, Granite 4.2 8B up to 117,964 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Ling 3.0 Flash Sante accepts text; Granite 4.2 8B accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.

Are any of these open source?

Granite 4.2 8B 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. Granite 4.2 8B came out Aug 25, 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.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons