ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Ling 3.0 Flash VL vs Hy-MT2-1.8B

Ling 3.0 Flash VL comes out ahead, 76 to 49 on our weighted score, though Hy-MT2-1.8B is 14% cheaper per token.

  1. Our pick

    inclusionAI

    Ling 3.0 Flash VL

    Released Sep 10, 2026New

    76/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.06 / $0.18
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Ling 3.0 Flash VL

  2. Tencent

    Hy-MT2-1.8B

    Released May 21, 2026

    49/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.044 / $0.177
    • Context8K
    Full specs Remove Hy-MT2-1.8B

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Ling 3.0 Flash VL is our pick

Ling 3.0 Flash VL is the better all-round choice, scoring 76/100 against Hy-MT2-1.8B (49). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Hy-MT2-1.8B wins 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 priceHy-MT2-1.8BHy-MT2-1.8B $0.077 · Ling 3.0 Flash VL $0.09 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextLing 3.0 Flash VLLing 3.0 Flash VL 262,144 · Hy-MT2-1.8B 8,192 tokens
  • Widest inputsLing 3.0 Flash VLLing 3.0 Flash VL: Text, Images, Video · Hy-MT2-1.8B: Text
  • Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
How the score is built
MeasureWeightLing 3.0 Flash VLHy-MT2-1.8B
Price50%9598
Inputs & features30%700
Context window20%370
Overall100%76/10049/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Ling 3.0 Flash VL vs Hy-MT2-1.8B specifications side by side
SpecificationLing 3.0 Flash VLinclusionAIHy-MT2-1.8BTencent
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)——
ECI rank——
Price per million tokens
Input$0.06$0.044 (best)
Output$0.18$0.177 (best)
Cached input——
Blended (3:1)$0.09$0.077 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 7 providersMedian of 3 providers
Limits
Context window262,144 tokens (best)8,192 tokens
Max output32,768 tokens (best)4,096 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesNo
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoNo
VideoYesNo
ReasoningYesNo
Tool callingYesNo
Structured outputNoNo
Availability
WeightsOpenMITOpen
API model ID——
API providers7 (best)3
ReleasedSep 10, 2026May 21, 2026
Knowledge cutoff——
03 — Cost

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
  • Hy-MT2-1.8B$0.794
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Ling 3.0 Flash VL or Hy-MT2-1.8B?

Ling 3.0 Flash VL is the better all-round choice, scoring 76/100 against Hy-MT2-1.8B (49). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Hy-MT2-1.8B wins 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 Hy-MT2-1.8B?

Hy-MT2-1.8B is cheaper at $0.044 input / $0.177 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). 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 $0.077 per million tokens for Hy-MT2-1.8B 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 Hy-MT2-1.8B 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 Hy-MT2-1.8B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Hy-MT2-1.8B does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.

Which has the bigger context window?

Ling 3.0 Flash VL has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 8,192 for Hy-MT2-1.8B. Maximum output per response: Ling 3.0 Flash VL up to 32,768, Hy-MT2-1.8B up to 4,096 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Ling 3.0 Flash VL accepts text, images and video; Hy-MT2-1.8B accepts text. Ling 3.0 Flash VL handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Yes, both publish their weights (MIT), so you can self-host them.

Which is newer?

Ling 3.0 Flash VL is the newest, released Sep 10, 2026. Hy-MT2-1.8B came out May 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.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons