Ling 3.0 Flash VL vs Apertus 8B vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
Ling 3.0 Flash VL comes out ahead, 76 to 68 and 54 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
inclusionAILing 3.0 Flash VL
76/100- ECI—
- Price$0.06 / $0.18
- Context262K
Swiss AI
Apertus 8B
54/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.20
- Context66K
NVIDIANemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
68/100- ECI—
- Price$0.055 / $0.20
- Context262K
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is our pick
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is the better all-round choice, scoring 76/100 against Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B (68) and Apertus 8B (54). It leads on inputs & features. 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 VLLing 3.0 Flash VL $0.09 · Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B $0.091 · Apertus 8B $0.125 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextLing 3.0 Flash VL and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3BLing 3.0 Flash VL 262,144 · Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B 262,144 · Apertus 8B 65,536 tokens
- Widest inputsLing 3.0 Flash VLLing 3.0 Flash VL: Text, Images, Video · Apertus 8B: Text · Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Ling 3.0 Flash VL | Apertus 8B | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 95 | 89 | 95 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 70 | 25 | 45 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 12 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 76/100 | 54/100 | 68/100 |
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 VLinclusionAI | Apertus 8BSwiss AI | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3BNVIDIA |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.06 | $0.10 | $0.055 (best) |
| Output | $0.18 (best) | $0.20 | $0.20 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.09 (best) | $0.125 | $0.091 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 7 providers | Median of 1 providers | Median of 10 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens (best) | 65,536 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens | 8,192 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | Yes | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | OpenMIT | OpenApache-2.0 | Open |
| API model ID | — | — | nvidia/nemotron-3.5-lightning-30b-a3b |
| API providers | 7 | 1 | 15 (best) |
| Released | Sep 10, 2026 | Sep 2, 2025 | Aug 11, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Sep 2025 | Sep 2025 |
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 VL$0.96
- Apertus 8B$1.40
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B$0.95
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Ling 3.0 Flash VL, Apertus 8B or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is the better all-round choice, scoring 76/100 against Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B (68) and Apertus 8B (54). It leads on inputs & features. 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 VL, Apertus 8B or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is cheaper at $0.06 input / $0.18 output per million tokens (median across 7 API providers). Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B costs $0.055 input / $0.20 output per million tokens (median across 10 API providers; free on Nvidia); Apertus 8B costs $0.10 input / $0.20 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.09 per million tokens for Ling 3.0 Flash VL versus $0.091 for Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B (1× as much) and $0.125 for Apertus 8B (1.4× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Ling 3.0 Flash VL has not been scored yet, Apertus 8B has not been scored yet and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 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 VL, Apertus 8B and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B 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?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B have the largest context windows (262,144 and 262,144 tokens), against 65,536 for Apertus 8B. Maximum output per response: Ling 3.0 Flash VL up to 32,768, Apertus 8B up to 8,192, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B up to 262,144 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL accepts text, images and video; Apertus 8B accepts text; Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B accepts text. Ling 3.0 Flash VL handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, all three publish their weights (MIT and Apache-2.0), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is the newest, released Sep 10, 2026. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B came out Aug 11, 2026; Apertus 8B came out Sep 2, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Apertus 8B Sep 2025, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B Sep 2025.
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.
