ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Ling 3.1 Flash vs LightOnOCR-3 0.8B

Ling 3.1 Flash comes out ahead, 36 to 30 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Our pick

    inclusionAI

    Ling 3.1 Flash

    Released Sep 29, 2026New

    36/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.30 / $0.90
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Ling 3.1 Flash

  2. LightOn

    LightOnOCR-3 0.8B

    Released Oct 8, 2026New

    30/100
    • ECI—
    • Price—
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove LightOnOCR-3 0.8B

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Ling 3.1 Flash is our pick

Ling 3.1 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 36/100 against LightOnOCR-3 0.8B (30). It leads on inputs & features. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. 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 3.1 FlashLing 3.1 Flash $0.45 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · LightOnOCR-3 0.8B unpriced
  • Longest contextAbout the sameLing 3.1 Flash 262,144 · LightOnOCR-3 0.8B 262,144 tokens
  • Widest inputsLightOnOCR-3 0.8BLing 3.1 Flash: Text · LightOnOCR-3 0.8B: Text, Images
  • Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
How the score is built
MeasureWeightLing 3.1 FlashLightOnOCR-3 0.8B
Inputs & features60%3525
Context window40%3737
Overall100%36/10030/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability and price. 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 3.1 Flash vs LightOnOCR-3 0.8B specifications side by side
SpecificationLing 3.1 FlashinclusionAILightOnOCR-3 0.8BLightOn
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)——
ECI rank——
Price per million tokens
Input$0.30—
Output$0.90—
Cached input——
Blended (3:1)$0.45—
Long-context rateSame rate—
Price sourceMedian of 5 providers—
Limits
Context window262,144 tokens262,144 tokens
Max output32,768 tokens (best)16,384 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesNoYes
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYesNo
Tool callingYesNo
Structured outputNoNo
Availability
WeightsOpenOpenapache-2.0
API model ID——
API providers7 (best)1
ReleasedSep 29, 2026Oct 8, 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 3.1 Flash$4.80
  • LightOnOCR-3 0.8B—
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Ling 3.1 Flash or LightOnOCR-3 0.8B?

Ling 3.1 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 36/100 against LightOnOCR-3 0.8B (30). It leads on inputs & features. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.

Which is cheaper, Ling 3.1 Flash or LightOnOCR-3 0.8B?

Ling 3.1 Flash is cheaper at $0.30 input / $0.90 output per million tokens (median across 5 API providers). . At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.45 per million tokens for Ling 3.1 Flash versus . LightOnOCR-3 0.8B has no published per-token price.

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Ling 3.1 Flash has not been scored yet and LightOnOCR-3 0.8B has not been scored yet.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Ling 3.1 Flash and LightOnOCR-3 0.8B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that LightOnOCR-3 0.8B does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.

Which has the bigger context window?

Ling 3.1 Flash and LightOnOCR-3 0.8B share the same 262,144-token context window. Maximum output per response: Ling 3.1 Flash up to 32,768, LightOnOCR-3 0.8B up to 16,384 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Ling 3.1 Flash accepts text; LightOnOCR-3 0.8B accepts text and images. LightOnOCR-3 0.8B handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Yes, both publish their weights (apache-2.0), so you can self-host them.

Which is newer?

LightOnOCR-3 0.8B is the newest, released Oct 8, 2026. Ling 3.1 Flash came out Sep 29, 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