Ling 3.0 Flash Sante vs Hy-MT2-30B-A3B
Ling 3.0 Flash Sante comes out ahead, 63 to 44 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
inclusionAILing 3.0 Flash Sante
63/100- ECI—
- Price$0.075 / $0.22
- Context262K
TencentHy-MT2-30B-A3B
44/100- ECI—
- Price$0.074 / $0.295
- Context8K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Ling 3.0 Flash Sante is our pick
Ling 3.0 Flash Sante is the better all-round choice, scoring 63/100 against Hy-MT2-30B-A3B (44). 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 SanteLing 3.0 Flash Sante $0.111 · Hy-MT2-30B-A3B $0.129 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextLing 3.0 Flash SanteLing 3.0 Flash Sante 262,144 · Hy-MT2-30B-A3B 8,192 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsLing 3.0 Flash Sante: Text · Hy-MT2-30B-A3B: Text
- Self-hostingHy-MT2-30B-A3BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Ling 3.0 Flash Sante | Hy-MT2-30B-A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 91 | 88 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 0 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 0 |
| Overall | 100% | 63/100 | 44/100 |
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 SanteinclusionAI | Hy-MT2-30B-A3BTencent |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.075 | $0.074 (best) |
| Output | $0.22 (best) | $0.295 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.111 (best) | $0.129 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 2 providers | Median of 3 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens (best) | 4,096 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 | No |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 2 | 3 (best) |
| Released | Sep 4, 2026 | May 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 Sante$1.19
- Hy-MT2-30B-A3B$1.33
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Ling 3.0 Flash Sante or Hy-MT2-30B-A3B?
Ling 3.0 Flash Sante is the better all-round choice, scoring 63/100 against Hy-MT2-30B-A3B (44). 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 Sante or Hy-MT2-30B-A3B?
Ling 3.0 Flash Sante is cheaper at $0.075 input / $0.22 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers). Hy-MT2-30B-A3B costs $0.074 input / $0.295 output per million tokens (median across 3 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 Sante versus $0.129 for Hy-MT2-30B-A3B (1.2× 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 Hy-MT2-30B-A3B 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 Hy-MT2-30B-A3B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Hy-MT2-30B-A3B does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Ling 3.0 Flash Sante has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 8,192 for Hy-MT2-30B-A3B. Maximum output per response: Ling 3.0 Flash Sante up to 32,768, Hy-MT2-30B-A3B up to 4,096 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Ling 3.0 Flash Sante accepts text; Hy-MT2-30B-A3B accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Hy-MT2-30B-A3B 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. Hy-MT2-30B-A3B came out May 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 Nov 2, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Laguna S 2.1Three-way comparison
- Ling 3.0 Flash Sante vs Laguna S 2.1Poolside
- Ling 3.0 Flash Sante vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3BNVIDIA
- Ling 3.0 Flash Sante vs Granite 4.2 8BIBM
- Ling 3.0 Flash Sante vs Gemma 4 12B ITGoogle
- Hy-MT2-30B-A3B vs Gemma 4 12B ITGoogle
- Hy-MT2-30B-A3B vs Step 3.5 Flash 2603StepFun
