Skip to content
Model Pareto

Ling 3.0 Flash

inclusionAI (Ant Group)Open weightsartificialanalysis.ai ↗
Input
$0.075/M tok
Output
$0.22/M tok
Blended
$0.111/M tok · 3:1
Speed
346tok/s
Context
262Ktokens

Long-tail import from Artificial Analysis (2026-09-24); AA variant: Ling 3.0 Flash. Price = AA median host price.

Rankings

Self-hostingEstimated

How we estimate →

What it would cost to run these open weights yourself on rented GPUs, compared with the API price above.

Hardware
2× H200 141GB
FP8 weights
Throughput
~9,742 tok/s
many requests batched
Price
$0.079–0.65 /M tok
busy → light use
On your own machine
Mac Studio M5 Max 128GB (int4, ~170 tok/s single-stream)
single consumer GPU or Mac
Assumptions (5)
  • FP8 weights (124B params, 5.1B active per token) + 25% KV-cache headroom ≈ 155 GB
  • 2× H200 141GB at $3.59–$7.91/GPU-hour on-demand (2026-09-24)
  • ~9,742 output tok/s aggregate at batch 350 (bandwidth-bound); MoE compute scales with active params
  • Blended 3:1 input:output; prefill ~183,349 tok/s
  • Low = 75% utilization at the low GPU price; high = 20% at the high price

Benchmark scores

~ italic, dashed = no published score yet, estimated from related benchmarks.

Coding

~#10 of 14 (estimated)~73.9%
  1. #1Claude Opus 596.0%
  2. #2Claude Sonnet 585.2%
  3. #9Xing4.0-29B-A4B75.0%
  4. ~#10Ling 3.0 FlashEstimated73.9%
  5. #10Claude Haiku 4.573.3%
No published score — estimated from related benchmarks
DeepSWE v1.1Estimated
~#28 of 31 (estimated)~49.5%
  1. #1DeepSeek V4.1 Flash74.2%
  2. #2Grok 4.772.6%
  3. #27Qwen3.8 Max (0902)51.0%
  4. ~#28Ling 3.0 FlashEstimated49.5%
  5. #28Qwen3.8 27B42.2%
No published score — estimated from related benchmarks
LiveCodeBenchEstimated
~#8 of 20 (estimated)~70.6%
  1. #1Qwen3.8-Omni-Flash92.6%
  2. #2Qwen3.8 Flash-Next91.9%
  3. #7gpt-oss-20b77.7%
  4. ~#8Ling 3.0 FlashEstimated70.6%
  5. #8Mistral Small 464.0%
No published score — estimated from related benchmarks
~last of 15 (estimated)below measured range (<41.1)
  1. #1Claude Opus 5.566.0
  2. #2Claude Fable 5.162.2
  3. #14GPT-6 Luna41.1
  4. ~#15Ling 3.0 FlashEstimated<41.1
No published score — estimated from related benchmarks

Hard reasoning

Agents

~#37 of 116 (estimated)~75.5%
  1. #1Step 3.7 Flash98.5%
  2. #2Gemini 3.1 Pro95.6%
  3. #36GPT-5.4 nano76.0%
  4. ~#37Ling 3.0 FlashEstimated75.5%
  5. #37Nova 2.0 Lite72.8%
No published score — estimated from related benchmarks
~#9 of 12 (estimated)~71.5%
  1. #1Kimi K384.8%
  2. #2Qwen3.8 27B84.3%
  3. #8Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite74.0%
  4. ~#9Ling 3.0 FlashEstimated71.5%
  5. #9Nex-N2.5-Mini71.2%
No published score — estimated from related benchmarks
OSWorld 2.0Estimated
~last of 5 (estimated)below measured range (<47.5%)
  1. #1GLM-5.3 Flash59.1%
  2. #2Kimi K358.3%
  3. #4GPT-5.547.5%
  4. ~#5Ling 3.0 FlashEstimated<47.5%
No published score — estimated from related benchmarks
BrowseCompEstimated
~#15 of 18 (estimated)~72.6%
  1. #1Atria Dawn Preview92.5%
  2. #2GPT-6 Astra91.5%
  3. #14Inkling77.1%
  4. ~#15Ling 3.0 FlashEstimated72.6%
  5. #15Mistral Medium 3.548.6%
No published score — estimated from related benchmarks
~#23 of 87 (estimated)~1386 Elo
  1. #1Claude Opus 5.51846
  2. #2Claude Fable 5.11735
  3. #22Qwen3.8 27B1409
  4. ~#23Ling 3.0 FlashEstimated1386
  5. #23GPT-6 Luna1367
No published score — estimated from related benchmarks
~#29 of 80 (estimated)~26.8%
  1. #1Claude Opus 5.569.5%
  2. #2DeepSeek V4.1 Flash68.9%
  3. #28Apodex 1.128.2%
  4. ~#29Ling 3.0 FlashEstimated26.8%
  5. #29GPT-5.4 mini26.2%
No published score — estimated from related benchmarks