ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B vs Ling 3.1 Flash

MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B comes out ahead, 57 to 36 on our weighted score.

  1. Our pick

    OpenBMB

    MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B

    Released Oct 7, 2026New

    57/100
    • ECI—
    • Price—
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B

  2. 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

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

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 sameMiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B 262,144 · Ling 3.1 Flash 262,144 tokens
  • Widest inputsMiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3BMiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B: Text, Images, Video · Ling 3.1 Flash: Text
  • Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
How the score is built
MeasureWeightMiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3BLing 3.1 Flash
Inputs & features60%7035
Context window40%3737
Overall100%57/10036/100

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.

MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B vs Ling 3.1 Flash specifications side by side
SpecificationMiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3BOpenBMBLing 3.1 FlashinclusionAI
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 window262,144 tokens262,144 tokens
Max output262,144 tokens (best)32,768 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesNo
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoNo
VideoYesNo
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoNo
Availability
WeightsOpenApache-2.0Open
API model ID——
API providers17 (best)
ReleasedOct 7, 2026Sep 29, 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.

  • MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B—
  • Ling 3.1 Flash$4.80
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B or Ling 3.1 Flash?

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, MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B or Ling 3.1 Flash?

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. MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B has not been scored yet and Ling 3.1 Flash has not been scored yet.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B and Ling 3.1 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?

MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B and Ling 3.1 Flash share the same 262,144-token context window. Maximum output per response: MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B up to 262,144, Ling 3.1 Flash up to 32,768 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B accepts text, images and video; Ling 3.1 Flash accepts text. 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.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons