The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin leads the LLM Stats Score 43.0 to 25.7. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 22.2x cheaper per token.

Anthropic · InclusionAI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin leads the overall LLM Stats Score 43.0 to 25.7, ranking #44 overall.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is roughly 22.2x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin also accepts a larger context window (262,144 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Claude Haiku 4.5

  • you want predictable pricing at $1.00/M input and $5.00/M output

Choose Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

  • overall performance matters — it scores 43.0 and ranks #44 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and agents — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
  • cost matters — it's about 22.2x cheaper per token
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 262,144 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Haiku 4.5
Anthropic
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
InclusionAI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
25.7
#153
43.0
#44
Reasoning
25.3
#152
44.2
#35
Agents
13.5
#93
29.2
#37
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
0 of 1
1 of 1
Input price
$1.00 / M
$0.06 / M
Output price
$5.00 / M
$0.18 / M
Context window
200,000
262,144

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Claude Haiku 4.5
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Tool use
15.5#90
20.4#58
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

12 reported for Claude Haiku 4.5 · 6 for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

1 shared

Claude Haiku 4.5 outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is better at 1 benchmark (Finance Agent v2).

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Sun Sep 20 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin costs less

For input processing, Claude Haiku 4.5 ($1.00/1M tokens) is 16.7x more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash Fin ($0.06/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Haiku 4.5 ($5.00/1M tokens) is 27.8x more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash Fin ($0.18/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Haiku 4.5 is more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash Fin.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Sun Sep 20 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Haiku 4.5
Input tokens$1.00
Output tokens$5.00
Best providerAnthropic
InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Input tokens$0.06
Output tokens$0.18
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin accepts 262,144 input tokens compared to Claude Haiku 4.5's 200,000 tokens. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin can generate longer responses up to 262,144 tokens, while Claude Haiku 4.5 is limited to 64,000 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Haiku 4.5
Input200,000 tokens
Output64,000 tokens
InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Input262,144 tokens
Output262,144 tokens
Sun Sep 20 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Claude Haiku 4.5 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.0 Flash Fin does not.

Claude Haiku 4.5 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude Haiku 4.5

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Haiku 4.5 was released on 2025-10-15, while Ling 3.0 Flash Fin was released on 2026-09-03.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 11 months newer than Claude Haiku 4.5.

Claude Haiku 4.5

Oct 15, 2025

11 months ago

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Sep 3, 2026

2 weeks ago

10mo newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Claude Haiku 4.5 has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2025-02-01, while Ling 3.0 Flash Fin's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Claude Haiku 4.5's training data extends to 2025-02-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without Ling 3.0 Flash Fin's cutoff date.

Claude Haiku 4.5

Feb 2025

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

—

Provider Availability

Claude Haiku 4.5 is available from Anthropic, DeepInfra, Vertex AI. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is available from DeepInfra.

Claude Haiku 4.5

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $1.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $5.00/1M
deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $1.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $5.00/1M
vertex logo
Unknown Organization
Input Price:Input: $1.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $5.00/1M

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.06/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.18/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Haiku 4.5 and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Haiku 4.5
✓ Preferred
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Ling 3.0 Flash Fin.

Which is better, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin leads the LLM Stats Score 43.0 to 25.7. Claude Haiku 4.5 is made by Anthropic and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is made by InclusionAI. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Claude Haiku 4.5 compare to Ling 3.0 Flash Fin in benchmarks?

Claude Haiku 4.5 scores Tau2 Retail: 83.2%, MMMLU: 83.0%, Tau2 Telecom: 83.0%, AIME 2025: 80.7%, SWE-Bench Verified: 73.3%. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin scores SpreadSheetBench-v1: 86.5%, Finance Agent v1.1: 69.2%, Finance Agent v2: 59.8%, Tau3 Banking: 41.0%, APEX-Agents: 29.2%.

Is Claude Haiku 4.5 cheaper than Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 16.7x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Haiku 4.5 costs $1.00/M input and $5.00/M output via anthropic. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin costs $0.06/M input and $0.18/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Haiku 4.5 and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

Claude Haiku 4.5 supports 200K tokens and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin supports 262K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude Haiku 4.5 and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (25.7 vs 43.0), context window (200K vs 262K), input pricing ($1.00 vs $0.06/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs Unknown). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Haiku 4.5 and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

Claude Haiku 4.5 is developed by Anthropic and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is developed by InclusionAI.

Related comparisons