Ling 3.0 Flash vs Ling 3.0 Flash Sante
Too close to call on our weighted score (Ling 3.0 Flash 65, Ling 3.0 Flash Sante 63). The right pick depends on what you value most.
inclusionAILing 3.0 Flash
65/100- ECI—
- Price$0.06 / $0.18
- Context262K
- inclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash Sante
63/100- ECI—
- Price$0.075 / $0.22
- Context262K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Ling 3.0 Flash 65/100, Ling 3.0 Flash Sante 63/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Ling 3.0 Flash 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 priceLing 3.0 FlashLing 3.0 Flash $0.09 · Ling 3.0 Flash Sante $0.111 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextAbout the sameLing 3.0 Flash 262,144 · Ling 3.0 Flash Sante 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsLing 3.0 Flash: Text · Ling 3.0 Flash Sante: Text
- Self-hostingLing 3.0 FlashPublishes downloadable weights (MIT)
| Measure | Weight | Ling 3.0 Flash | Ling 3.0 Flash Sante |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 95 | 91 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 65/100 | 63/100 |
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 FlashinclusionAI | Ling 3.0 Flash SanteinclusionAI |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.06 (best) | $0.075 |
| Output | $0.18 (best) | $0.22 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.09 (best) | $0.111 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 7 providers | Median of 2 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 | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | OpenMIT | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 9 (best) | 2 |
| Released | Jul 23, 2026 | Sep 4, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
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
- Ling 3.0 Flash Sante$1.19
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Ling 3.0 Flash or Ling 3.0 Flash Sante?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Ling 3.0 Flash 65/100, Ling 3.0 Flash Sante 63/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Ling 3.0 Flash 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 or Ling 3.0 Flash Sante?
Ling 3.0 Flash is cheaper at $0.06 input / $0.18 output per million tokens (median across 7 API providers). Ling 3.0 Flash Sante costs $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 $0.09 per million tokens for Ling 3.0 Flash versus $0.111 for Ling 3.0 Flash Sante (1.2× 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 Ling 3.0 Flash Sante has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Ling 3.0 Flash and Ling 3.0 Flash Sante 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 and Ling 3.0 Flash Sante share the same 262,144-token context window. Maximum output per response: Ling 3.0 Flash up to 32,768, Ling 3.0 Flash Sante up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Ling 3.0 Flash accepts text; Ling 3.0 Flash Sante accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Ling 3.0 Flash publishes its weights (MIT) and can be self-hosted; Ling 3.0 Flash Sante is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Ling 3.0 Flash Sante is the newest, released Sep 4, 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.
Related comparisons
- Add Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3BThree-way comparison
- Ling 3.0 Flash vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3BNVIDIA
- Ling 3.0 Flash vs Granite 4.2 8BIBM
- Ling 3.0 Flash vs Laguna S 2.1Poolside
- Ling 3.0 Flash vs DiffusionGemma 26B A4B ITGoogle
- Ling 3.0 Flash Sante vs Laguna S 2.1Poolside
- Ling 3.0 Flash Sante vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3BNVIDIA
