Ling 3.0 Flash Sante vs Claude Mythos 5.1
Claude Mythos 5.1 comes out ahead, 66 to 36 on our weighted score.
inclusionAILing 3.0 Flash Sante
36/100- ECI—
- Price$0.075 / $0.22
- Context262K
- Our pick
AnthropicClaude Mythos 5.1
66/100- ECI—
- Price—
- Context1M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Claude Mythos 5.1 is our pick
Claude Mythos 5.1 is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against Ling 3.0 Flash Sante (36). It leads on inputs & features and 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 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · Claude Mythos 5.1 unpriced
- Longest contextClaude Mythos 5.1Claude Mythos 5.1 1,000,000 · Ling 3.0 Flash Sante 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsClaude Mythos 5.1Ling 3.0 Flash Sante: Text · Claude Mythos 5.1: Text, Images, PDFs
- Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
| Measure | Weight | Ling 3.0 Flash Sante | Claude Mythos 5.1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inputs & features | 60% | 35 | 70 |
| Context window | 40% | 37 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 36/100 | 66/100 |
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 | Claude Mythos 5.1Anthropic |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.075 | — |
| Output | $0.22 | — |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.111 | — |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | — |
| Price source | Median of 2 providers | — |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens | 128,000 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 2 | — |
| Released | Sep 4, 2026 | Sep 1, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Jun 2026 |
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
- Claude Mythos 5.1—
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Ling 3.0 Flash Sante or Claude Mythos 5.1?
Claude Mythos 5.1 is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against Ling 3.0 Flash Sante (36). It leads on inputs & features and 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 or Claude Mythos 5.1?
Ling 3.0 Flash Sante is cheaper at $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 $0.111 per million tokens for Ling 3.0 Flash Sante versus . Claude Mythos 5.1 has no published per-token price.
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 Claude Mythos 5.1 has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Ling 3.0 Flash Sante and Claude Mythos 5.1 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?
Claude Mythos 5.1 has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 262,144 for Ling 3.0 Flash Sante. Maximum output per response: Ling 3.0 Flash Sante up to 32,768, Claude Mythos 5.1 up to 128,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Ling 3.0 Flash Sante accepts text; Claude Mythos 5.1 accepts text, images and PDFs. Claude Mythos 5.1 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
No. Ling 3.0 Flash Sante and Claude Mythos 5.1 are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.
Which is newer?
Ling 3.0 Flash Sante is the newest, released Sep 4, 2026. Claude Mythos 5.1 came out Sep 1, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Mythos 5.1 Jun 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
- Claude Mythos 5.1 vs GPT-6 Astra (Fast)OpenAI
- Claude Mythos 5.1 vs Hy4 previewTencent
