Skip to content
ModelCap

Head-to-head comparison

Ling 3.0 Flash VL vs Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct

Ling 3.0 Flash VL (InclusionAI) and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct (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 15 September 2026

As of 15 September 2026, Ling 3.0 Flash VL holds the stronger ModelCap Index position (#59 vs #61); Ling 3.0 Flash VL is 10.6× cheaper per output token ($0.18/1M vs $1.90/1M); and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct 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 — #59 against #61 (57.6 vs 56.1 points).
  • API cost matters — $0.18/1M output tokens against $1.90/1M, about 10.6× cheaper.
  • your workload is prompt-heavy — input tokens cost $0.06/1M against $0.21/1M.
  • AA Humanity's Last Exam is your yardstick — 22.0% against 6.6%.
  • you want the more recently listed model — Ling 3.0 Flash VL was listed 10 September 2026, Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct 23 September 2025.

Choose Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct if…

  • you need the longer context window — 262K tokens against 131K.
  • you want provider choice — 5 listed API providers against 1.

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

Specification comparison of Ling 3.0 Flash VL and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct
FieldLing 3.0 Flash VLInclusionAIQwen3 VL 235B A22B InstructQwen
ModelCap Index position#59#61
Index score57.656.1
EvidenceMeasuredMeasured
Input price / 1M tokens$0.06$0.21
Output price / 1M tokens$0.18$1.90
Context window131K tokens262K tokens
Max output tokens33K33K
API providers listed15
Weight accessOpen weightsOpen weights
Input modalitiesText, Image, VideoText, Image
First listed10 September 202623 September 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 VL 235B A22B Instruct

Public benchmark boards where Ling 3.0 Flash VL or Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct has a published result
BoardLing 3.0 Flash VLQwen3 VL 235B A22B InstructLeads
Arena codingArena (LMArena)—14651452–1478Only one result
AA Intelligence IndexArtificial Analysis25.0intelligence-index:v4.3:reasoning-unspecified—Only one result
AA τ²-Bench TelecomArtificial Analysis—35.1%tau2:telecom:dual-control:pass-at-1:3-repeats:source-model="Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct":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=true6.6%hle:may-2025:text-only-2158:no-tools:pass-at-1:source-model="Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct":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 VL 235B A22B Instruct: common questions

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

Ling 3.0 Flash VL ranks higher on the ModelCap Index as of 15 September 2026: #59 against #61. 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 VL 235B A22B Instruct?

Ling 3.0 Flash VL is cheaper on output tokens: $0.18/1M against $1.90/1M. Input tokens are $0.06/1M for Ling 3.0 Flash VL and $0.21/1M for Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct. 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 $1.37 for Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct. Ling 3.0 Flash VL costs 84.7% 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 VL 235B A22B Instruct?

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

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

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 VL 235B A22B Instruct open-weight models?

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

ModelCap currently lists 1 API provider for Ling 3.0 Flash VL and 5 for Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct, 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 VL 235B A22B Instruct comparison?

Every figure comes from the sealed ModelCap dataset published 15 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