The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin leads the LLM Stats Score 43.3 to 0.4.

InclusionAI · NVIDIA · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin leads the overall LLM Stats Score 43.3 to 0.4, ranking #39 overall.

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

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
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

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

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
InclusionAI
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
NVIDIA
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
43.3
#39
0.4
#322
Reasoning
44.7
#32
0.1
#315
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$0.06 / M
— / M
Output price
$0.18 / M
— / M
Context window
262,144
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
Finance
36.7#5
6.2#162
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

6 reported for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin · 11 for Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

No common benchmarks found

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instructdon'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

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

54.0B diff

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin has 54.0B more parameters than Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct, making it 77.1% larger.

InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
124.0Bparameters
NVIDIA
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
70.0Bparameters
124.0B
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
70.0B
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Ling 3.0 Flash Fin specifies input context (262,144 tokens). Only Ling 3.0 Flash Fin specifies output context (262,144 tokens).

InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Input262,144 tokens
Output262,144 tokens
NVIDIA
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Tue Sep 08 2026 • llm-stats.com

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin was released on 2026-09-03, while Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct was released on 2024-10-01.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 23 months newer than Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Sep 3, 2026

5 days ago

1.9yr newer
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

Oct 1, 2024

1.9 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2023-12-01, while Ling 3.0 Flash Fin's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct's training data extends to 2023-12-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without Ling 3.0 Flash Fin's cutoff date.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

—

Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct

Dec 2023

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
✓ Preferred
Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct.

Which is better, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin or Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin leads the LLM Stats Score 43.3 to 0.4. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is made by InclusionAI and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct is made by NVIDIA. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Ling 3.0 Flash Fin compare to Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct in benchmarks?

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%. Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct scores GSM8k: 91.4%, HellaSwag: 85.6%, Winogrande: 84.5%, GSM8K Chat: 81.9%, MMLU Chat: 80.6%.

What are the context window sizes for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin supports 262K tokens and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct supports an unknown number of tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (43.3 vs 0.4), licensing (Unknown vs Llama 3.1 Community License). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is developed by InclusionAI and Llama 3.1 Nemotron 70B Instruct is developed by NVIDIA.

Related comparisons