The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 58.4 to 42.9. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 44.4x cheaper per token.

Anthropic · InclusionAI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 58.4 to 42.9, ranking #2 overall.

On price, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is roughly 44.4x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 also accepts a larger context window (1,000,000 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 Sonnet 5.5

  • overall performance matters — it scores 58.4 and ranks #2 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and agents — it leads those capability indexes
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,000,000 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

  • cost matters — it's about 44.4x cheaper per token

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Sonnet 5.5
Anthropic
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
InclusionAI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
58.4
#2
42.9
#59
Reasoning
57.2
#3
44.7
#44
Agents
43.3
#3
28.6
#54
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$2.00 / M
$0.06 / M
Output price
$10.00 / M
$0.18 / M
Context window
1,000,000
262,144

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Tool use
35.8#2
20.7#65
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

47 reported for Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 6 for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

No common benchmarks found

Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Ling 3.0 Flash Findon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

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 Sonnet 5.5 ($2.00/1M tokens) is 33.3x more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash Fin ($0.06/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Sonnet 5.5 ($10.00/1M tokens) is 55.6x more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash Fin ($0.18/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Sonnet 5.5 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
Thu Oct 22 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Input tokens$2.00
Output tokens$10.00
Best providerAnthropic
InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Input tokens$0.06
Output tokens$0.18
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Claude Sonnet 5.5 accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to Ling 3.0 Flash Fin's 262,144 tokens. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin can generate longer responses up to 262,144 tokens, while Claude Sonnet 5.5 is limited to 128,000 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Input262,144 tokens
Output262,144 tokens
Thu Oct 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Claude Sonnet 5.5 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.0 Flash Fin does not.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Sonnet 5.5 was released on 2026-09-28, while Ling 3.0 Flash Fin was released on 2026-09-03.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is 1 month newer than Ling 3.0 Flash Fin.

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Sep 28, 2026

3 weeks ago

3w newer
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Sep 3, 2026

1 months ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Claude Sonnet 5.5 has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-06-01, while Ling 3.0 Flash Fin's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Claude Sonnet 5.5's training data extends to 2026-06-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without Ling 3.0 Flash Fin's cutoff date.

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Jun 2026

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

—

Provider Availability

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is available from Anthropic. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is available from DeepInfra.

Claude Sonnet 5.5

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $2.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $10.00/1M

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?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Sonnet 5.5
✓ Preferred
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Ling 3.0 Flash Fin.

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 58.4 to 42.9. Claude Sonnet 5.5 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 Sonnet 5.5 compare to Ling 3.0 Flash Fin in benchmarks?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 scores BenchCAD (with Python tool): 96.3%, ArXivMath (with tools): 95.2%, Global-MMLU: 92.1%, MILU: 91.6%, SWE-bench Multilingual: 90.3%. 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 Sonnet 5.5 cheaper than Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 33.3x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Sonnet 5.5 costs $2.00/M input and $10.00/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 Sonnet 5.5 and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 supports 1.0M 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 Sonnet 5.5 and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (58.4 vs 42.9), context window (1.0M vs 262K), input pricing ($2.00 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 Sonnet 5.5 and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is developed by Anthropic and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is developed by InclusionAI.

Related comparisons