The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

ERNIE 4.5 vs Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin leads the LLM Stats Score 43.2 to -13.4. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 14.4x cheaper per token.

Baidu · InclusionAI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin leads the overall LLM Stats Score 43.2 to -13.4, ranking #41 overall.

On price, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is roughly 14.4x 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 ERNIE 4.5

  • you want predictable pricing at $0.40/M input and $4.00/M output

Choose Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

  • overall performance matters — it scores 43.2 and ranks #41 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
  • cost matters — it's about 14.4x 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.

ERNIE 4.5
Baidu
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
InclusionAI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
-13.4
#368
43.2
#41
Reasoning
-13.4
#362
44.6
#33
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$0.40 / M
$0.06 / M
Output price
$4.00 / M
$0.18 / M
Context window
128,000
262,144

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
ERNIE 4.5
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Finance
-15.4#226
36.7#5
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

20 reported for ERNIE 4.5 · 6 for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

No common benchmarks found

ERNIE 4.5 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, ERNIE 4.5 ($0.40/1M tokens) is 6.7x more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash Fin ($0.06/1M tokens).

For output processing, ERNIE 4.5 ($4.00/1M tokens) is 22.2x more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash Fin ($0.18/1M tokens).

In conclusion, ERNIE 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
Mon Sep 14 2026 • llm-stats.com
Baidu
ERNIE 4.5
Input tokens$0.40
Output tokens$4.00
Best providerNovita
InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Input tokens$0.06
Output tokens$0.18
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

103.0B diff

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin has 103.0B more parameters than ERNIE 4.5, making it 490.5% larger.

Baidu
ERNIE 4.5
21.0Bparameters
InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
124.0Bparameters
21.0B
ERNIE 4.5
124.0B
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin accepts 262,144 input tokens compared to ERNIE 4.5's 128,000 tokens. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin can generate longer responses up to 262,144 tokens, while ERNIE 4.5 is limited to 65,536 tokens.

Baidu
ERNIE 4.5
Input128,000 tokens
Output65,536 tokens
InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Input262,144 tokens
Output262,144 tokens
Mon Sep 14 2026 • llm-stats.com

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

ERNIE 4.5 was released on 2025-06-25, while Ling 3.0 Flash Fin was released on 2026-09-03.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 15 months newer than ERNIE 4.5.

ERNIE 4.5

Jun 25, 2025

1.2 years ago

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Sep 3, 2026

1 weeks ago

1.2yr newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

ERNIE 4.5 is available from Novita. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is available from DeepInfra.

ERNIE 4.5

novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $0.40/1MOutput Price:Output: $4.00/1M

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 ERNIE 4.5 and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

ERNIE 4.5
✓ Preferred
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about ERNIE 4.5 vs Ling 3.0 Flash Fin.

Which is better, ERNIE 4.5 or Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin leads the LLM Stats Score 43.2 to -13.4. ERNIE 4.5 is made by Baidu 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 ERNIE 4.5 compare to Ling 3.0 Flash Fin in benchmarks?

ERNIE 4.5 scores GPQA: 74.0%, ARC-E: 60.7%, PIQA: 55.2%, Winogrande: 51.3%, CLUEWSC: 48.6%. 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 ERNIE 4.5 cheaper than Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 6.7x cheaper for input tokens. ERNIE 4.5 costs $0.40/M input and $4.00/M output via novita. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin costs $0.06/M input and $0.18/M output via deepinfra.

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

ERNIE 4.5 supports 128K 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 ERNIE 4.5 and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (-13.4 vs 43.2), context window (128K vs 262K), input pricing ($0.40 vs $0.06/M), licensing (Proprietary vs Unknown). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes ERNIE 4.5 and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

ERNIE 4.5 is developed by Baidu and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is developed by InclusionAI.

Related comparisons