Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Mistral Medium 3.5
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin leads the LLM Stats Score 43.2 to 26.9. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 33.3x cheaper per token.
InclusionAI · Mistral AI · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin leads the overall LLM Stats Score 43.2 to 26.9, ranking #41 overall.
In the 2 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin wins 2; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is roughly 33.3x 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 Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
- overall performance matters — it scores 43.2 and ranks #41 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning and agents — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 2 of 2 exact shared results
- cost matters — it's about 33.3x 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
Choose Mistral Medium 3.5
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Individual benchmarks
6 reported for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin · 11 for Mistral Medium 3.5
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin outperforms in 2 benchmarks (Finance Agent v2, Tau3 Banking), while Mistral Medium 3.5 is better at 0 benchmarks.
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin ($0.06/1M tokens) is 25.0x cheaper than Mistral Medium 3.5 ($1.50/1M tokens).
For output processing, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin ($0.18/1M tokens) is 41.7x cheaper than Mistral Medium 3.5 ($7.50/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Mistral Medium 3.5 is more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash Fin.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
Mistral Medium 3.5 has 4.0B more parameters than Ling 3.0 Flash Fin, making it 3.2% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin accepts 262,144 input tokens compared to Mistral Medium 3.5's 256,000 tokens. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin can generate longer responses up to 262,144 tokens, while Mistral Medium 3.5 is limited to 256,000 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Mistral Medium 3.5 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.0 Flash Fin does not.
Mistral Medium 3.5 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Mistral Medium 3.5
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin was released on 2026-09-03, while Mistral Medium 3.5 was released on 2026-04-29.
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 4 months newer than Mistral Medium 3.5.
Sep 3, 2026
1 weeks ago
4mo newerApr 29, 2026
4 months ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is available from DeepInfra. Mistral Medium 3.5 is available from Mistral AI.
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Mistral Medium 3.5
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and Mistral Medium 3.5 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Mistral Medium 3.5.