Ling 3.1 Flash vs Viv Fast vs Laguna S 2.1
Viv Fast comes out ahead, 75 to 69 and 65 on our weighted score, though Ling 3.1 Flash is 44% cheaper per token.
inclusionAILing 3.1 Flash
65/100- ECI—
- Price$0.075 / $0.22
- Context262K
- Our pick
VivgridViv Fast
75/100- ECI—
- Price$0.13 / $0.40
- Context1M
PoolsideLaguna S 2.1
69/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.20
- Context1.05M
Viv Fast is our pick
Viv Fast is the better all-round choice, scoring 75/100 against Laguna S 2.1 (69) and Ling 3.1 Flash (65). It leads on inputs & features. Ling 3.1 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 3.1 FlashLing 3.1 Flash $0.111 · Laguna S 2.1 $0.125 · Viv Fast $0.198 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextLaguna S 2.1Laguna S 2.1 1,048,576 · Viv Fast 1,000,000 · Ling 3.1 Flash 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsViv FastLing 3.1 Flash: Text · Viv Fast: Text, Images · Laguna S 2.1: Text
- Self-hostingLaguna S 2.1Publishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Ling 3.1 Flash | Viv Fast | Laguna S 2.1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 95 | 83 | 93 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 70 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 60 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 65/100 | 75/100 | 69/100 |
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 3.1 FlashinclusionAI | Viv FastVivgrid | Laguna S 2.1Poolside |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.075 (best) | $0.13 | $0.10 |
| Output | $0.22 | $0.40 | $0.20 (best) |
| Cached input | — | $0.05 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.111 (best) | $0.198 | $0.125 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 1 providers | Official Vivgrid API | Median of 4 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens | 256,000 tokens (best) | 32,768 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yeslow · high · max | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | — | viv-fast | poolside/laguna-s-2.1 |
| API providers | 3 | 1 | 6 (best) |
| Released | Sep 29, 2026 | Sep 21, 2026 | Jul 21, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Sep 2026 | — |
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$1.19
- Viv Fast$2.10
- Laguna S 2.1$1.40
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Ling 3.1 Flash, Viv Fast or Laguna S 2.1?
Viv Fast is the better all-round choice, scoring 75/100 against Laguna S 2.1 (69) and Ling 3.1 Flash (65). It leads on inputs & features. Ling 3.1 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 3.1 Flash, Viv Fast or Laguna S 2.1?
Ling 3.1 Flash is cheaper at $0.075 input / $0.22 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Laguna S 2.1 costs $0.10 input / $0.20 output per million tokens (median across 4 API providers; free on Poolside); Viv Fast costs $0.13 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Vivgrid API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.111 per million tokens for Ling 3.1 Flash versus $0.125 for Laguna S 2.1 (1.1× as much) and $0.198 for Viv Fast (1.8× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Ling 3.1 Flash has not been scored yet, Viv Fast has not been scored yet and Laguna S 2.1 has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Ling 3.1 Flash, Viv Fast and Laguna S 2.1 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Laguna S 2.1 has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Viv Fast and 262,144 for Ling 3.1 Flash. Maximum output per response: Ling 3.1 Flash up to 32,768, Viv Fast up to 256,000, Laguna S 2.1 up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Ling 3.1 Flash accepts text; Viv Fast accepts text and images; Laguna S 2.1 accepts text. Viv Fast handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Laguna S 2.1 publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Ling 3.1 Flash and Viv Fast is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Ling 3.1 Flash is the newest, released Sep 29, 2026. Viv Fast came out Sep 21, 2026; Laguna S 2.1 came out Jul 21, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Viv Fast Sep 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 Oct 4, 2026.
