The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin leads the LLM Stats Score 43.3 to 8.5. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 1.2x cheaper per token.

InclusionAI · Mistral AI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin leads the overall LLM Stats Score 43.3 to 8.5, ranking #39 overall.

On price, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is roughly 1.2x 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 43.3 and ranks #39 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
  • cost matters — it's about 1.2x 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 Small 3.2 24B 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
Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct
Mistral AI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
43.3
#39
8.5
#276
Reasoning
44.7
#32
8.0
#277
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$0.06 / M
$0.07 / M
Output price
$0.18 / M
$0.20 / M
Context window
262,144
128,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct
Finance
36.7#5
9.3#152
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

6 reported for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin · 15 for Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct

No common benchmarks found

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and Mistral Small 3.2 24B 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

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin costs less

For input processing, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin ($0.06/1M tokens) is 1.3x cheaper than Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct ($0.07/1M tokens).

For output processing, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin ($0.18/1M tokens) is 1.1x cheaper than Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct ($0.20/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Mistral Small 3.2 24B 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
Wed Sep 09 2026 • llm-stats.com
InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Input tokens$0.06
Output tokens$0.18
Best providerDeepinfra
Mistral AI
Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct
Input tokens$0.07
Output tokens$0.20
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

100.4B diff

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin has 100.4B more parameters than Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct, making it 425.4% larger.

InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
124.0Bparameters
Mistral AI
Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct
23.6Bparameters
124.0B
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
23.6B
Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin accepts 262,144 input tokens compared to Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin can generate longer responses up to 262,144 tokens, while Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct is limited to 128,000 tokens.

InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Input262,144 tokens
Output262,144 tokens
Mistral AI
Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Wed Sep 09 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.0 Flash Fin does not.

Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin was released on 2026-09-03, while Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct was released on 2025-06-20.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 15 months newer than Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Sep 3, 2026

6 days ago

1.2yr newer
Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct

Jun 20, 2025

1.2 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2023-10-01, while Ling 3.0 Flash Fin's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct's training data extends to 2023-10-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without Ling 3.0 Flash Fin's cutoff date.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

—

Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct

Oct 2023

Provider Availability

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is available from DeepInfra. Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct is available from DeepInfra.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.06/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.18/1M

Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.07/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.20/1M
* 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 Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
✓ Preferred
Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct.

Which is better, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin or Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin leads the LLM Stats Score 43.3 to 8.5. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is made by InclusionAI and Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct is made by Mistral AI. 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 Mistral Small 3.2 24B 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%. Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct scores DocVQA: 94.9%, AI2D: 92.9%, HumanEval Plus: 92.9%, ChartQA: 87.4%, IF: 84.8%.

Is Ling 3.0 Flash Fin cheaper than Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 1.3x cheaper for input tokens. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin costs $0.06/M input and $0.18/M output via deepinfra. Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct costs $0.07/M input and $0.20/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin supports 262K tokens and Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct supports 128K 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 Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (43.3 vs 8.5), context window (262K vs 128K), input pricing ($0.06 vs $0.07/M), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (Unknown vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is developed by InclusionAI and Mistral Small 3.2 24B Instruct is developed by Mistral AI.

Related comparisons