Skip to content
ModelCap

Head-to-head comparison

R1 0528 vs Ling 3.0 Flash VL

R1 0528 (DeepSeek) and Ling 3.0 Flash VL (InclusionAI) compared on the ModelCap Index, API price, context window, provider availability, weight access and every public benchmark board they share. Figures are the same ones shown on the live rankings; nothing here is a hidden score.

Snapshot as of 14 September 2026

As of 14 September 2026, Ling 3.0 Flash VL holds the stronger ModelCap Index position (#57 vs #59); Ling 3.0 Flash VL is 11.9× cheaper per output token ($0.18/1M vs $2.15/1M); and R1 0528 offers the longer context window (164K vs 131K tokens).

Which should you choose?

Choose R1 0528 if…

  • you need the longer context window — 164K tokens against 131K.
  • you want provider choice — 4 listed API providers against 1.

Choose Ling 3.0 Flash VL if…

  • you want the stronger overall ModelCap Index position — #57 against #59 (56.9 vs 56.6 points).
  • API cost matters — $0.18/1M output tokens against $2.15/1M, about 11.9× cheaper.
  • your workload is prompt-heavy — input tokens cost $0.06/1M against $0.50/1M.
  • you want the more recently listed model — Ling 3.0 Flash VL was listed 10 September 2026, R1 0528 28 May 2025.

R1 0528 vs Ling 3.0 Flash VL: specs, pricing and context

Specification comparison of R1 0528 and Ling 3.0 Flash VL
FieldR1 0528DeepSeekLing 3.0 Flash VLInclusionAI
ModelCap Index position#59#57
Index score56.656.9
EvidenceMeasuredMeasured
Input price / 1M tokens$0.50$0.06
Output price / 1M tokens$2.15$0.18
Context window164K tokens131K tokens
Max output tokens33K33K
API providers listed41
Weight accessOpen weightsOpen weights
Input modalitiesTextText, Image, Video
First listed28 May 202510 September 2026
PublisherDeepSeekInclusionAI

Evidence: 2 public benchmark observations across 2 boards · 1 public benchmark observation across 1 board. Prices are the lowest listed API offer per million tokens observed on the OpenRouter catalogue.

Benchmark scores: R1 0528 vs Ling 3.0 Flash VL

Public benchmark boards where R1 0528 or Ling 3.0 Flash VL has a published result
BoardR1 0528Ling 3.0 Flash VLLeads
Arena codingArena (LMArena)14641453–1475Only one result
AA Intelligence IndexArtificial Analysis24.8intelligence-index:v4.3:reasoning-unspecifiedOnly one result
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Artificial Analysis64.4%terminal-bench:2.1:terminus-2:e2b:pass-at-1:3-repeats:source-model="Ling-3.0-flash-VL":reasoning=trueOnly one result
AA Humanity's Last ExamArtificial Analysis22.0%hle:may-2025:text-only-2158:no-tools:pass-at-1:source-model="Ling-3.0-flash-VL":reasoning=trueOnly one result

Scores are the sources' own published figures for each model's best evaluated configuration; ModelCap never re-runs a benchmark.

Want a different pairing? Open the interactive comparison tool to swap either model for any current ranked language model.

R1 0528 vs Ling 3.0 Flash VL: common questions

Is R1 0528 better than Ling 3.0 Flash VL?

Ling 3.0 Flash VL ranks higher on the ModelCap Index as of 14 September 2026: #57 against #59. That is a capability ranking built from public benchmark evidence with published uncertainty; whether it is "better" for you also depends on price, context and where you can run it. Their published uncertainty intervals overlap, so the rank difference alone does not establish a reliable capability advantage for your workload.

Is R1 0528 cheaper than Ling 3.0 Flash VL?

Ling 3.0 Flash VL is cheaper on output tokens: $0.18/1M against $2.15/1M. Input tokens are $0.50/1M for R1 0528 and $0.06/1M for Ling 3.0 Flash VL. Prices are the lowest listed API offer ModelCap observed, in USD per million tokens. For 1,000 requests with 2,000 input and 500 output tokens each (2M input + 0.5M output), the listed-rate estimate is $2.08 for R1 0528 versus $0.21 for Ling 3.0 Flash VL. Ling 3.0 Flash VL costs 89.9% less in this scenario. This excludes caching, batch discounts, prompt-length tiers, tool charges and retries; verify the selected endpoint before budgeting.

Which has the bigger context window, R1 0528 or Ling 3.0 Flash VL?

R1 0528 has the larger context window: 164K tokens against 131K.

Which is better for coding, R1 0528 or Ling 3.0 Flash VL?

The two models do not share a coding benchmark board on ModelCap yet, so no head-to-head coding score is published; the ModelCap Index position is the closest overall signal.

Are R1 0528 and Ling 3.0 Flash VL open-weight models?

R1 0528: Open weights. Ling 3.0 Flash VL: Open weights. Open weights mean the checkpoint can be downloaded and self-hosted under its licence; API-only models are available solely through hosted endpoints.

Where can I run R1 0528 and Ling 3.0 Flash VL?

ModelCap currently lists 4 API providers for R1 0528 and 1 for Ling 3.0 Flash VL, from the OpenRouter catalogue snapshot the site serves; each model page lists the providers and their prices.

How current is this R1 0528 vs Ling 3.0 Flash VL comparison?

Every figure comes from the sealed ModelCap dataset published 14 September 2026; the page re-renders within a minute of each data refresh, and the ModelCap Index positions are the same ones shown on the live rankings.

Explore further