Ling 3.0 Flash Sante vs MiniCPM5-2B vs Laguna S 2.1
Laguna S 2.1 comes out ahead, 45 to 36 and 31 on our weighted score.
inclusionAILing 3.0 Flash Sante
36/100- ECI—
- Price$0.075 / $0.22
- Context262K
OpenBMB
MiniCPM5-2B
31/100- ECI—
- Price—
- Context131K
- Our pick
PoolsideLaguna S 2.1
45/100- ECI—
- Price$0.09 / $0.18
- Context1.05M
Laguna S 2.1 is our pick
Laguna S 2.1 is the better all-round choice, scoring 45/100 against Ling 3.0 Flash Sante (36) and MiniCPM5-2B (31). It leads on context window. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. 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 · Laguna S 2.1 $0.113 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · MiniCPM5-2B unpriced
- Longest contextLaguna S 2.1Laguna S 2.1 1,048,576 · Ling 3.0 Flash Sante 262,144 · MiniCPM5-2B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsLing 3.0 Flash Sante: Text · MiniCPM5-2B: Text · Laguna S 2.1: Text
- Self-hostingMiniCPM5-2B and Laguna S 2.1Publishes downloadable weights (apache-2.0)
| Measure | Weight | Ling 3.0 Flash Sante | MiniCPM5-2B | Laguna S 2.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inputs & features | 60% | 35 | 35 | 35 |
| Context window | 40% | 37 | 25 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 36/100 | 31/100 | 45/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability and price. 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 | MiniCPM5-2BOpenBMB | Laguna S 2.1Poolside |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.075 (best) | — | $0.09 |
| Output | $0.22 | — | $0.18 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.111 (best) | — | $0.113 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | — | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 2 providers | — | Median of 2 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 131,072 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) | 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 | Openapache-2.0 | Open |
| API model ID | — | — | poolside/laguna-s-2.1 |
| API providers | 2 | 1 | 4 (best) |
| Released | Sep 4, 2026 | Sep 6, 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 Sante$1.19
- MiniCPM5-2B—
- Laguna S 2.1$1.26
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Ling 3.0 Flash Sante, MiniCPM5-2B or Laguna S 2.1?
Laguna S 2.1 is the better all-round choice, scoring 45/100 against Ling 3.0 Flash Sante (36) and MiniCPM5-2B (31). It leads on context window. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. 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, MiniCPM5-2B or Laguna S 2.1?
Ling 3.0 Flash Sante is cheaper at $0.075 input / $0.22 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers). Laguna S 2.1 costs $0.09 input / $0.18 output per million tokens (median across 2 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 Sante versus $0.113 for Laguna S 2.1 (1× as much). MiniCPM5-2B has no published per-token price.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Ling 3.0 Flash Sante has not been scored yet, MiniCPM5-2B 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 Sante, MiniCPM5-2B 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 Sante and 131,072 for MiniCPM5-2B. Maximum output per response: Ling 3.0 Flash Sante up to 32,768, MiniCPM5-2B up to 131,072, Laguna S 2.1 up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Ling 3.0 Flash Sante accepts text; MiniCPM5-2B accepts text; Laguna S 2.1 accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
MiniCPM5-2B and Laguna S 2.1 publishes its weights (apache-2.0) and can be self-hosted; Ling 3.0 Flash Sante is proprietary.
Which is newer?
MiniCPM5-2B is the newest, released Sep 6, 2026. Ling 3.0 Flash Sante came out Sep 4, 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 Nov 2, 2026.
