The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin leads the LLM Stats Score 43.3 to 2.1. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct cost the same.

InclusionAI · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin leads the overall LLM Stats Score 43.3 to 2.1, ranking #39 overall.

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
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 262,144 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose Qwen2.5-Coder 32B 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
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
43.3
#39
2.1
#315
Reasoning
44.7
#32
2.1
#305
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$0.06 / M
$0.09 / M
Output price
$0.18 / M
$0.09 / 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
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
Finance
36.7#5
1.2#190
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

6 reported for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin · 15 for Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

No common benchmarks found

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B 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

For input processing, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin ($0.06/1M tokens) is 1.5x cheaper than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct ($0.09/1M tokens).

For output processing, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin ($0.18/1M tokens) is 2.0x more expensive than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct ($0.09/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct cost the same.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Thu Sep 10 2026 • llm-stats.com
InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Input tokens$0.06
Output tokens$0.18
Best providerDeepinfra
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
Input tokens$0.09
Output tokens$0.09
Best providerLambda
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

92.0B diff

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin has 92.0B more parameters than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct, making it 287.5% larger.

InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
124.0Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
32.0Bparameters
124.0B
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
32.0B
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin accepts 262,144 input tokens compared to Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin can generate longer responses up to 262,144 tokens, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is limited to 128,000 tokens.

InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Input262,144 tokens
Output262,144 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Thu Sep 10 2026 • llm-stats.com

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin was released on 2026-09-03, while Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct was released on 2024-09-19.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 24 months newer than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Sep 3, 2026

6 days ago

2.0yr newer
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

Sep 19, 2024

2.0 years ago

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

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is available from DeepInfra. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is available from Lambda, DeepInfra, Hyperbolic, Fireworks.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

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

Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct

lambda logo
Lambda
Input Price:Input: $0.09/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.09/1M
deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.18/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.18/1M
hyperbolic logo
Hyperbolic
Input Price:Input: $0.20/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.20/1M
fireworks logo
Fireworks
Input Price:Input: $0.89/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.89/1M
* 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 Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
✓ Preferred
Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct.

Which is better, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin or Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin leads the LLM Stats Score 43.3 to 2.1. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is made by InclusionAI and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. 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 Qwen2.5-Coder 32B 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%. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct scores HumanEval: 92.7%, GSM8k: 91.1%, MBPP: 90.2%, HellaSwag: 83.0%, Winogrande: 80.8%.

Is Ling 3.0 Flash Fin cheaper than Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 1.5x cheaper for input tokens. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin costs $0.06/M input and $0.18/M output via deepinfra. Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct costs $0.09/M input and $0.09/M output via lambda.

What are the context window sizes for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin supports 262K tokens and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B 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 Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (43.3 vs 2.1), context window (262K vs 128K), input pricing ($0.06 vs $0.09/M), licensing (Unknown vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is developed by InclusionAI and Qwen2.5-Coder 32B Instruct is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Related comparisons