The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Ling 3.0 Flash vs Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin leads the LLM Stats Score 43.3 to 36.5. Ling 3.0 Flash and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin cost the same.

InclusionAI · InclusionAI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin leads the overall LLM Stats Score 43.3 to 36.5, ranking #39 overall.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

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

  • you want predictable pricing at $0.06/M input and $0.18/M output

Choose Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

  • overall performance matters — it scores 43.3 and ranks #39 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and agents — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
  • 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.

Ling 3.0 Flash
InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
InclusionAI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
36.5
#75
43.3
#39
Reasoning
35.6
#77
44.7
#32
Agents
19.7
#61
29.5
#35
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
0 of 1
1 of 1
Input price
$0.06 / M
$0.06 / M
Output price
$0.18 / M
$0.18 / M
Context window
131,072
262,144

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Ling 3.0 Flash
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Tool use
18.1#67
20.5#56
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

19 reported for Ling 3.0 Flash · 6 for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

1 shared

Ling 3.0 Flash outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is better at 1 benchmark (Tau3 Banking).

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Tue Sep 08 2026 • llm-stats.com

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 ($0.06/1M tokens) costs the same as Ling 3.0 Flash Fin ($0.06/1M tokens).

For output processing, Ling 3.0 Flash ($0.18/1M tokens) costs the same as Ling 3.0 Flash Fin ($0.18/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Ling 3.0 Flash and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin cost the same.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Tue Sep 08 2026 • llm-stats.com
InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash
Input tokens$0.06
Output tokens$0.18
Best providerDeepinfra
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

0.0M diff

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin has 0.0B more parameters than Ling 3.0 Flash, making it 0.0% larger.

InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash
124.0Bparameters
InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
124.0Bparameters
124.0B
Ling 3.0 Flash
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 Ling 3.0 Flash's 131,072 tokens. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin can generate longer responses up to 262,144 tokens, while Ling 3.0 Flash is limited to 131,072 tokens.

InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash
Input131,072 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Input262,144 tokens
Output262,144 tokens
Tue Sep 08 2026 • llm-stats.com

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Ling 3.0 Flash was released on 2026-08-04, while Ling 3.0 Flash Fin was released on 2026-09-03.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 1 month newer than Ling 3.0 Flash.

Ling 3.0 Flash

Aug 4, 2026

1 months ago

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

Sep 3, 2026

5 days ago

1mo newer

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 is available from DeepInfra. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is available from DeepInfra.

Ling 3.0 Flash

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

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 Ling 3.0 Flash and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Ling 3.0 Flash
✓ Preferred
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Ling 3.0 Flash vs Ling 3.0 Flash Fin.

Which is better, Ling 3.0 Flash or Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin leads the LLM Stats Score 43.3 to 36.5. Ling 3.0 Flash is made by InclusionAI 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 Ling 3.0 Flash compare to Ling 3.0 Flash Fin in benchmarks?

Ling 3.0 Flash scores AIME 2026: 93.2%, Multi-IF: 87.7%, HMMT Feb 26: 87.0%, IMO-AnswerBench: 83.7%, LiveCodeBench v6: 82.8%. 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 Ling 3.0 Flash cheaper than Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

Both models cost $0.06 per million input tokens.

What are the context window sizes for Ling 3.0 Flash and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

Ling 3.0 Flash supports 131K 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 Ling 3.0 Flash and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (36.5 vs 43.3), context window (131K vs 262K). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Related comparisons