Viv Fast vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Viv Fast comes out ahead, 75 to 65 on our weighted score, though Ling 3.1 Flash is 44% cheaper per token.
- Our pick
VivgridViv Fast
75/100- ECI—
- Price$0.13 / $0.40
- Context1M
inclusionAILing 3.1 Flash
65/100- ECI—
- Price$0.075 / $0.22
- Context262K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Viv Fast is our pick
Viv Fast is the better all-round choice, scoring 75/100 against Ling 3.1 Flash (65). It leads on inputs & features and context window. 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 · Viv Fast $0.198 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextViv FastViv Fast 1,000,000 · Ling 3.1 Flash 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsViv FastViv Fast: Text, Images · Ling 3.1 Flash: Text
- Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
| Measure | Weight | Viv Fast | Ling 3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 83 | 95 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 70 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 60 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 75/100 | 65/100 |
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 | Viv FastVivgrid | Ling 3.1 FlashinclusionAI |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.13 | $0.075 (best) |
| Output | $0.40 | $0.22 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.05 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.198 | $0.111 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Vivgrid API | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | 256,000 tokens (best) | 32,768 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · high · max | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | viv-fast | — |
| API providers | 1 | 3 (best) |
| Released | Sep 21, 2026 | Sep 29, 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.
- Viv Fast$2.10
- Ling 3.1 Flash$1.19
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Viv Fast or Ling 3.1 Flash?
Viv Fast is the better all-round choice, scoring 75/100 against Ling 3.1 Flash (65). It leads on inputs & features and context window. 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, Viv Fast or Ling 3.1 Flash?
Ling 3.1 Flash is cheaper at $0.075 input / $0.22 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). 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 $0.198 for Viv Fast (1.8× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Viv Fast 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 Viv Fast 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?
Viv Fast has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 262,144 for Ling 3.1 Flash. Maximum output per response: Viv Fast up to 256,000, Ling 3.1 Flash up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Viv Fast accepts text and images; Ling 3.1 Flash accepts text. Viv Fast handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
No. Viv Fast and Ling 3.1 Flash are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.
Which is newer?
Ling 3.1 Flash is the newest, released Sep 29, 2026. Viv Fast came out Sep 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.
