Ling 3.0 Flash Sante vs Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Too close to call on our weighted score (Ling 3.0 Flash Sante 63, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin 63). The right pick depends on what you value most.
inclusionAILing 3.0 Flash Sante
63/100- ECI—
- Price$0.075 / $0.22
- Context262K
- inclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
63/100- ECI—
- Price$0.075 / $0.22
- Context262K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Ling 3.0 Flash Sante 63/100, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin 63/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Ling 3.0 Flash Sante on price. 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 priceSame priceLing 3.0 Flash Sante $0.111 · Ling 3.0 Flash Fin $0.111 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextAbout the sameLing 3.0 Flash Sante 262,144 · Ling 3.0 Flash Fin 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsLing 3.0 Flash Sante: Text · Ling 3.0 Flash Fin: Text
- Self-hostingLing 3.0 Flash FinPublishes downloadable weights (MIT)
| Measure | Weight | Ling 3.0 Flash Sante | Ling 3.0 Flash Fin |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 91 | 91 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 63/100 | 63/100 |
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 | Ling 3.0 Flash FininclusionAI |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.075 | $0.075 |
| Output | $0.22 | $0.22 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.111 | $0.111 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 2 providers | Median of 2 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 | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | OpenMIT |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 2 | 3 (best) |
| Released | Sep 4, 2026 | Aug 27, 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
- Ling 3.0 Flash Fin$1.19
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Ling 3.0 Flash Sante or Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Ling 3.0 Flash Sante 63/100, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin 63/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Ling 3.0 Flash Sante on price. 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 Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?
Ling 3.0 Flash Sante and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin cost the same: $0.075 input / $0.22 output per million tokens.
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 Ling 3.0 Flash Fin 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 Ling 3.0 Flash Fin 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 and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin share the same 262,144-token context window. Maximum output per response: Ling 3.0 Flash Sante up to 32,768, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Ling 3.0 Flash Sante accepts text; Ling 3.0 Flash Fin accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin publishes its weights (MIT) 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. 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 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
- Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Laguna S 2.1Poolside
- Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3BNVIDIA
