Skip to content
ModelCap

Head-to-head comparison

Ling 3.0 Flash VL vs Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507

Ling 3.0 Flash VL (InclusionAI) and Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507 (Qwen) 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 12 September 2026

As of 12 September 2026, Ling 3.0 Flash VL holds the stronger ModelCap Index position (#56 vs #58); Ling 3.0 Flash VL is 1.9× cheaper per output token ($0.18/1M vs $0.35/1M); and Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507 offers the longer context window (262K vs 131K tokens).

Which should you choose?

Choose Ling 3.0 Flash VL if…

  • you want the stronger overall ModelCap Index position — #56 against #58 (58.1 vs 57.6 points).
  • API cost matters — $0.18/1M output tokens against $0.35/1M, about 1.9× cheaper.
  • your workload is prompt-heavy — input tokens cost $0.06/1M against $0.087/1M.
  • AA Humanity's Last Exam is your yardstick — 22.0% against 11.1%.
  • you want the more recently listed model — Ling 3.0 Flash VL was listed 10 September 2026, Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507 21 July 2025.

Choose Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507 if…

  • you need the longer context window — 262K tokens against 131K.
  • you want provider choice — 10 listed API providers against 1.

Ling 3.0 Flash VL vs Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507: specs, pricing and context

Specification comparison of Ling 3.0 Flash VL and Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507
FieldLing 3.0 Flash VLInclusionAIQwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507Qwen
ModelCap Index position#56#58
Index score58.157.6
EvidenceMeasuredMeasured
Input price / 1M tokens$0.06$0.087
Output price / 1M tokens$0.18$0.35
Context window131K tokens262K tokens
Max output tokens33K236K
API providers listed110
Weight accessOpen weightsOpen weights
Input modalitiesText, Image, VideoText
First listed10 September 202621 July 2025
PublisherInclusionAIQwen

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

Benchmark scores: Ling 3.0 Flash VL vs Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507

Public benchmark boards where Ling 3.0 Flash VL or Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507 has a published result
BoardLing 3.0 Flash VLQwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507Leads
Arena codingArena (LMArena)14721468–1477Only one result
BFCL V4UC Berkeley (Gorilla)52.2PromptOnly 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 τ²-Bench TelecomArtificial Analysis33.3%tau2:telecom:dual-control:pass-at-1:3-repeats:source-model="Qwen3 235B 2507 (Non-reasoning)":reasoning=falseOnly 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=true11.1%hle:may-2025:text-only-2158:no-tools:pass-at-1:source-model="Qwen3 235B 2507 (Non-reasoning)":reasoning=falseLing 3.0 Flash VL

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.

Ling 3.0 Flash VL vs Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507: common questions

Is Ling 3.0 Flash VL better than Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507?

Ling 3.0 Flash VL ranks higher on the ModelCap Index as of 12 September 2026: #56 against #58. 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 Ling 3.0 Flash VL cheaper than Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507?

Ling 3.0 Flash VL is cheaper on output tokens: $0.18/1M against $0.35/1M. Input tokens are $0.06/1M for Ling 3.0 Flash VL and $0.087/1M for Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507. 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 $0.21 for Ling 3.0 Flash VL versus $0.35 for Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507. Ling 3.0 Flash VL costs 40.0% 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, Ling 3.0 Flash VL or Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507?

Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507 has the larger context window: 262K tokens against 131K.

Which is better for coding, Ling 3.0 Flash VL or Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507?

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 Ling 3.0 Flash VL and Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507 open-weight models?

Ling 3.0 Flash VL: Open weights. Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507: 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 Ling 3.0 Flash VL and Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507?

ModelCap currently lists 1 API provider for Ling 3.0 Flash VL and 10 for Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507, from the OpenRouter catalogue snapshot the site serves; each model page lists the providers and their prices.

How current is this Ling 3.0 Flash VL vs Qwen3 235B A22B Instruct 2507 comparison?

Every figure comes from the sealed ModelCap dataset published 12 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