Ling 3.1 Flash vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B comes out ahead, 57 to 36 on our weighted score.
inclusionAILing 3.1 Flash
36/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $0.90
- Context262K
- Our pick
OpenBMB
MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
57/100- ECI—
- Price—
- Context262K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B is our pick
MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B is the better all-round choice, scoring 57/100 against Ling 3.1 Flash (36). 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) · MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B unpriced
- Longest contextAbout the sameLing 3.1 Flash 262,144 · MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsMiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3BLing 3.1 Flash: Text · MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Ling 3.1 Flash | MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Inputs & features | 60% | 35 | 70 |
| Context window | 40% | 37 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 36/100 | 57/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability and price. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Ling 3.1 FlashinclusionAI | MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3BOpenBMB |
|---|---|---|
| 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 rate | Same rate | — |
| Price source | Median of 5 providers | — |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | OpenApache-2.0 |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 7 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Sep 29, 2026 | Oct 7, 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 3.1 Flash$4.80
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B—
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Ling 3.1 Flash or MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B?
MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B is the better all-round choice, scoring 57/100 against Ling 3.1 Flash (36). 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 MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B?
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 . MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B 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 MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Ling 3.1 Flash and MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B 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 3.1 Flash and MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B share the same 262,144-token context window. Maximum output per response: Ling 3.1 Flash up to 32,768, MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B up to 262,144 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Ling 3.1 Flash accepts text; MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B accepts text, images and video. MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B 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?
MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B is the newest, released Oct 7, 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.
Related comparisons
- Add Beam 1.0 501B A23BThree-way comparison
- Ling 3.1 Flash vs Beam 1.0 501B A23BReflection AI
- Ling 3.1 Flash vs Perceptron Mk1.5Perceptron
- Ling 3.1 Flash vs LongCat-2.5-PreviewMeituan (LongCat)
- Ling 3.1 Flash vs MiMo-V2.6-ProXiaomi
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B vs LightOnOCR-3 0.8BLightOn
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B vs Beam 1.0 501B A23BReflection AI
