Voxtral Mini 3B 2507 vs Ling 3.0 Flash VL
Ling 3.0 Flash VL comes out ahead, 76 to 61 on our weighted score, though Voxtral Mini 3B 2507 is 2.3× cheaper per token.
Mistral AIVoxtral Mini 3B 2507
61/100- ECI—
- Price$0.04 / $0.04
- Context33K
- Our pick
inclusionAILing 3.0 Flash VL
76/100- ECI—
- Price$0.06 / $0.18
- Context262K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is our pick
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is the better all-round choice, scoring 76/100 against Voxtral Mini 3B 2507 (61). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Voxtral Mini 3B 2507 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 priceVoxtral Mini 3B 2507Voxtral Mini 3B 2507 $0.04 · Ling 3.0 Flash VL $0.09 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextLing 3.0 Flash VLLing 3.0 Flash VL 262,144 · Voxtral Mini 3B 2507 32,768 tokens
- Widest inputsLing 3.0 Flash VLVoxtral Mini 3B 2507: Text, Audio · Ling 3.0 Flash VL: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Voxtral Mini 3B 2507 | Ling 3.0 Flash VL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 100 | 95 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 70 |
| Context window | 20% | 0 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 61/100 | 76/100 |
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 | Voxtral Mini 3B 2507Mistral AI | Ling 3.0 Flash VLinclusionAI |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.04 (best) | $0.06 |
| Output | $0.04 (best) | $0.18 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.04 (best) | $0.09 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 2 providers | Median of 7 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 32,768 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens | 32,768 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | Yes | No |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | OpenApache 2.0 | OpenMIT |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 3 | 7 (best) |
| Released | Jul 15, 2025 | Sep 10, 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.
- Voxtral Mini 3B 2507$0.48
- Ling 3.0 Flash VL$0.96
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Voxtral Mini 3B 2507 or Ling 3.0 Flash VL?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is the better all-round choice, scoring 76/100 against Voxtral Mini 3B 2507 (61). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Voxtral Mini 3B 2507 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, Voxtral Mini 3B 2507 or Ling 3.0 Flash VL?
Voxtral Mini 3B 2507 is cheaper at $0.04 input / $0.04 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers). Ling 3.0 Flash VL costs $0.06 input / $0.18 output per million tokens (median across 7 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.04 per million tokens for Voxtral Mini 3B 2507 versus $0.09 for Ling 3.0 Flash VL (2.3× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Voxtral Mini 3B 2507 has not been scored yet and Ling 3.0 Flash VL has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Voxtral Mini 3B 2507 and Ling 3.0 Flash VL 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 3.0 Flash VL has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 32,768 for Voxtral Mini 3B 2507. Maximum output per response: Voxtral Mini 3B 2507 up to 32,768, Ling 3.0 Flash VL up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Voxtral Mini 3B 2507 accepts text and audio; Ling 3.0 Flash VL accepts text, images and video. Ling 3.0 Flash VL handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights (Apache 2.0 and MIT), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is the newest, released Sep 10, 2026. Voxtral Mini 3B 2507 came out Jul 15, 2025.
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 Granite-4.0-H-MicroThree-way comparison
- Voxtral Mini 3B 2507 vs Granite-4.0-H-MicroIBM
- Voxtral Mini 3B 2507 vs Baichuan M2 32BBaichuan
- Voxtral Mini 3B 2507 vs Qwen3.5 2BAlibaba (Qwen)
- Voxtral Mini 3B 2507 vs Gemma 4 E4B ITGoogle
- Ling 3.0 Flash VL vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3BNVIDIA
- Ling 3.0 Flash VL vs Granite 4.2 8BIBM
