The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Granite 3.3 8B Instruct vs Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin leads the LLM Stats Score 43.3 to 2.5. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 5.6x cheaper per token.

IBM · InclusionAI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin leads the overall LLM Stats Score 43.3 to 2.5, ranking #39 overall.

On price, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is roughly 5.6x 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 Granite 3.3 8B Instruct

  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

Choose Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

  • overall performance matters — it scores 43.3 and ranks #39 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
  • cost matters — it's about 5.6x 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.

Granite 3.3 8B Instruct
IBM
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
InclusionAI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
2.5
#313
43.3
#39
Reasoning
2.9
#302
44.7
#32
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$0.50 / M
$0.06 / M
Output price
$0.50 / M
$0.18 / M
Context window
128,000
262,144

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Granite 3.3 8B Instruct
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Finance
1.4#186
36.7#5
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

14 reported for Granite 3.3 8B Instruct · 6 for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

No common benchmarks found

Granite 3.3 8B Instruct 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, Granite 3.3 8B Instruct ($0.50/1M tokens) is 8.3x more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash Fin ($0.06/1M tokens).

For output processing, Granite 3.3 8B Instruct ($0.50/1M tokens) is 2.8x more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash Fin ($0.18/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Granite 3.3 8B Instruct 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
Tue Sep 08 2026 • llm-stats.com
IBM
Granite 3.3 8B Instruct
Input tokens$0.50
Output tokens$0.50
Best providerReplicate
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

116.0B diff

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin has 116.0B more parameters than Granite 3.3 8B Instruct, making it 1450.0% larger.

IBM
Granite 3.3 8B Instruct
8.0Bparameters
InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
124.0Bparameters
8.0B
Granite 3.3 8B Instruct
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 Granite 3.3 8B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin can generate longer responses up to 262,144 tokens, while Granite 3.3 8B Instruct is limited to 8,192 tokens.

IBM
Granite 3.3 8B Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output8,192 tokens
InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Input262,144 tokens
Output262,144 tokens
Tue Sep 08 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Granite 3.3 8B Instruct supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.0 Flash Fin does not.

Granite 3.3 8B Instruct can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Granite 3.3 8B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Granite 3.3 8B Instruct was released on 2025-04-16, while Ling 3.0 Flash Fin was released on 2026-09-03.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 17 months newer than Granite 3.3 8B Instruct.

Granite 3.3 8B Instruct

Apr 16, 2025

1.4 years ago

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Sep 3, 2026

5 days ago

1.4yr newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Granite 3.3 8B Instruct has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2024-04-01, while Ling 3.0 Flash Fin's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Granite 3.3 8B Instruct's training data extends to 2024-04-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without Ling 3.0 Flash Fin's cutoff date.

Granite 3.3 8B Instruct

Apr 2024

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

—

Provider Availability

Granite 3.3 8B Instruct is available from Replicate. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is available from DeepInfra.

Granite 3.3 8B Instruct

replicate logo
Replicate
Input Price:Input: $0.50/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.50/1M

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 Granite 3.3 8B Instruct and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Granite 3.3 8B Instruct
✓ Preferred
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Granite 3.3 8B Instruct vs Ling 3.0 Flash Fin.

Which is better, Granite 3.3 8B Instruct or Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin leads the LLM Stats Score 43.3 to 2.5. Granite 3.3 8B Instruct is made by IBM 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 Granite 3.3 8B Instruct compare to Ling 3.0 Flash Fin in benchmarks?

Granite 3.3 8B Instruct scores HumanEval: 89.7%, AttaQ: 88.5%, HumanEval+: 86.1%, AIME 2024: 81.2%, GSM8k: 80.9%. 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 Granite 3.3 8B Instruct cheaper than Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 8.3x cheaper for input tokens. Granite 3.3 8B Instruct costs $0.50/M input and $0.50/M output via replicate. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin costs $0.06/M input and $0.18/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for Granite 3.3 8B Instruct and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

Granite 3.3 8B Instruct 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 Granite 3.3 8B Instruct and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (2.5 vs 43.3), context window (128K vs 262K), input pricing ($0.50 vs $0.06/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Apache 2.0 vs Unknown). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Granite 3.3 8B Instruct and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

Granite 3.3 8B Instruct is developed by IBM and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is developed by InclusionAI.

Related comparisons