Ling 3.0 Flash VL vs DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT
Too close to call on our weighted score (Ling 3.0 Flash VL 76, DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT 75). The right pick depends on what you value most.
inclusionAILing 3.0 Flash VL
76/100- ECI—
- Price$0.06 / $0.18
- Context262K
GoogleDiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT
75/100- ECI—
- Price$0.05 / $0.15
- Context262K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 1 points (Ling 3.0 Flash VL 76/100, DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT 75/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT 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 priceDiffusionGemma 26B A4B ITDiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT $0.075 · Ling 3.0 Flash VL $0.09 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextAbout the sameLing 3.0 Flash VL 262,144 · DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsLing 3.0 Flash VLLing 3.0 Flash VL: Text, Images, Video · DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT: Text, Images
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Ling 3.0 Flash VL | DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 95 | 99 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 70 | 60 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 76/100 | 75/100 |
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 | DiffusionGemma 26B A4B ITGoogle |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.06 | $0.05 (best) |
| Output | $0.18 | $0.15 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.09 | $0.075 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 7 providers | Median of 1 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 | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | OpenMIT | OpenApache 2.0 |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 7 (best) | 2 |
| Released | Sep 10, 2026 | Jun 9, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Jan 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
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT$0.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Ling 3.0 Flash VL or DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 1 points (Ling 3.0 Flash VL 76/100, DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT 75/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT 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 VL or DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT?
DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT is cheaper at $0.05 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Ling 3.0 Flash VL costs $0.06 input / $0.18 output per million tokens (median across 7 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.075 per million tokens for DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT versus $0.09 for Ling 3.0 Flash VL (1.2× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Ling 3.0 Flash VL has not been scored yet and DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Ling 3.0 Flash VL and DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT 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 VL and DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT share the same 262,144-token context window. Maximum output per response: Ling 3.0 Flash VL up to 32,768, DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL accepts text, images and video; DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT accepts text and images. Ling 3.0 Flash VL handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both 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. DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT came out Jun 9, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT Jan 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.
Related comparisons
- Add Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3BThree-way comparison
- Ling 3.0 Flash VL vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3BNVIDIA
- Ling 3.0 Flash VL vs Granite 4.2 8BIBM
- Ling 3.0 Flash VL vs Laguna S 2.1Poolside
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Hy-MT2-1.8BTencent
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Ling 3.0 FlashinclusionAI
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Granite 4.2 8BIBM
