ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Ling 3.0 Flash vs Granite 4.2 8B

Too close to call on our weighted score (Ling 3.0 Flash 65, Granite 4.2 8B 64). The right pick depends on what you value most.

  1. inclusionAI

    Ling 3.0 Flash

    Released Jul 23, 2026

    65/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.06 / $0.18
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Ling 3.0 Flash

  2. IBM

    Granite 4.2 8B

    Released Aug 25, 2026

    64/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.06 / $0.15
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove Granite 4.2 8B

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Too close to call

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Ling 3.0 Flash 65/100, Granite 4.2 8B 64/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Granite 4.2 8B on price and Ling 3.0 Flash for long inputs. 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 priceGranite 4.2 8BGranite 4.2 8B $0.083 · Ling 3.0 Flash $0.09 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextLing 3.0 FlashLing 3.0 Flash 262,144 · Granite 4.2 8B 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsSame inputsLing 3.0 Flash: Text · Granite 4.2 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 FlashGranite 4.2 8B
Price50%9597
Inputs & features30%3535
Context window20%3725
Overall100%65/10064/100

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 vs Granite 4.2 8B specifications side by side
SpecificationLing 3.0 FlashinclusionAIGranite 4.2 8BIBM
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)——
ECI rank——
Price per million tokens
Input$0.06$0.06
Output$0.18$0.15 (best)
Cached input——
Blended (3:1)$0.09$0.083 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 7 providersMedian of 7 providers
Limits
Context window262,144 tokens (best)131,072 tokens
Max output32,768 tokens117,964 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesNoNo
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoNo
Availability
WeightsOpenMITOpen
API model ID——
API providers9 (best)7
ReleasedJul 23, 2026Aug 25, 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$0.96
  • Granite 4.2 8B$0.90
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Ling 3.0 Flash or Granite 4.2 8B?

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Ling 3.0 Flash 65/100, Granite 4.2 8B 64/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Granite 4.2 8B on price and Ling 3.0 Flash for long inputs. 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 or Granite 4.2 8B?

Granite 4.2 8B is cheaper at $0.06 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (median across 7 API providers). Ling 3.0 Flash 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 $0.083 per million tokens for Granite 4.2 8B versus $0.09 for Ling 3.0 Flash (1.1× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Ling 3.0 Flash has not been scored yet and Granite 4.2 8B has not been scored yet.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Ling 3.0 Flash and Granite 4.2 8B 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 has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 131,072 for Granite 4.2 8B. Maximum output per response: Ling 3.0 Flash up to 32,768, Granite 4.2 8B up to 117,964 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Ling 3.0 Flash accepts text; Granite 4.2 8B accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.

Are any of these open source?

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

Which is newer?

Granite 4.2 8B is the newest, released Aug 25, 2026. Ling 3.0 Flash came out Jul 23, 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