Ling 3.0 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Flash
Qwen3.8 Flash comes out ahead, 74 to 65 on our weighted score, though Ling 3.0 Flash is 2.6× cheaper per token.
inclusionAILing 3.0 Flash
65/100- ECI—
- Price$0.06 / $0.18
- Context262K
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.8 Flash
74/100- ECI—
- Price$0.15 / $0.47
- Context1M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Qwen3.8 Flash is our pick
Qwen3.8 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 74/100 against Ling 3.0 Flash (65). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Ling 3.0 Flash 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 priceLing 3.0 FlashLing 3.0 Flash $0.09 · Qwen3.8 Flash $0.23 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3.8 FlashQwen3.8 Flash 1,000,000 · Ling 3.0 Flash 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3.8 FlashLing 3.0 Flash: Text · Qwen3.8 Flash: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingLing 3.0 FlashPublishes downloadable weights (MIT)
| Measure | Weight | Ling 3.0 Flash | Qwen3.8 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 95 | 77 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 80 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 65/100 | 74/100 |
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 | Qwen3.8 FlashAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.06 (best) | $0.15 |
| Output | $0.18 (best) | $0.47 |
| Cached input | — | $0.016 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.09 (best) | $0.23 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 7 providers | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yeslow · medium · xhigh |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | OpenMIT | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | qwen3.8-flash |
| API providers | 9 | 28 (best) |
| Released | Jul 23, 2026 | Aug 26, 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
- Qwen3.8 Flash$2.44
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Ling 3.0 Flash or Qwen3.8 Flash?
Qwen3.8 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 74/100 against Ling 3.0 Flash (65). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Ling 3.0 Flash 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 or Qwen3.8 Flash?
Ling 3.0 Flash is cheaper at $0.06 input / $0.18 output per million tokens (median across 7 API providers). Qwen3.8 Flash costs $0.15 input / $0.47 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). 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 $0.23 for Qwen3.8 Flash (2.6× 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 Qwen3.8 Flash has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Ling 3.0 Flash and Qwen3.8 Flash 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?
Qwen3.8 Flash has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 262,144 for Ling 3.0 Flash. Maximum output per response: Ling 3.0 Flash up to 32,768, Qwen3.8 Flash up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Ling 3.0 Flash accepts text; Qwen3.8 Flash accepts text, images and video. Qwen3.8 Flash handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Ling 3.0 Flash publishes its weights (MIT) and can be self-hosted; Qwen3.8 Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen3.8 Flash is the newest, released Aug 26, 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
- Qwen3.8 Flash vs Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 120B A12BNVIDIA
- Qwen3.8 Flash vs Viv FastVivgrid
