Skip to content
ModelCap

Head-to-head comparison

Ling 3.0 Flash vs Qwen3 235B A22B

Ling 3.0 Flash (InclusionAI) and Qwen3 235B A22B (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 10 September 2026

As of 10 September 2026, Ling 3.0 Flash holds the stronger ModelCap Index position (#78 vs #81); Ling 3.0 Flash is 28.9× cheaper per output token ($0.063/1M vs $1.82/1M); and Ling 3.0 Flash offers the longer context window (262K vs 131K tokens).

Which should you choose?

Choose Ling 3.0 Flash if…

  • you want the stronger overall ModelCap Index position — #78 against #81 (50.9 vs 50.3 points).
  • API cost matters — $0.063/1M output tokens against $1.82/1M, about 28.9× cheaper.
  • your workload is prompt-heavy — input tokens cost $0.021/1M against $0.455/1M.
  • you need the longer context window — 262K tokens against 131K.
  • you want provider choice — 2 listed API providers against 1.
  • you want the more recently listed model — Ling 3.0 Flash was listed 23 July 2026, Qwen3 235B A22B 28 April 2025.

Choose Qwen3 235B A22B if…

  • ModelCap publishes no field on which Qwen3 235B A22B leads Ling 3.0 Flash for this pair.

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

Specification comparison of Ling 3.0 Flash and Qwen3 235B A22B
FieldLing 3.0 FlashInclusionAIQwen3 235B A22BQwen
ModelCap Index position#78#81
Index score50.950.3
EvidenceEstimatedMeasured
Input price / 1M tokens$0.021$0.455
Output price / 1M tokens$0.063$1.82
Context window262K tokens131K tokens
Max output tokens33K8K
API providers listed21
Weight accessOpen weightsOpen weights
Input modalitiesTextText
First listed23 July 202628 April 2025
PublisherInclusionAIQwen

Evidence: 4 reported rows against measured corpus ladders (49%); publisher-corpus-prior over 185 held-out anchors (51%); shrunk 6.1 toward the measured corpus · 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 vs Qwen3 235B A22B

Public benchmark boards where Ling 3.0 Flash or Qwen3 235B A22B has a published result
BoardLing 3.0 FlashQwen3 235B A22BLeads
Arena codingArena (LMArena)14451438–1453No thinkingOnly one result
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Artificial Analysis55.4%terminal-bench:2.1:terminus-2:e2b:pass-at-1:3-repeats:source-model="Ling 3.0 Flash":reasoning=trueOnly one result
AA Humanity's Last ExamArtificial Analysis23.7%hle:may-2025:text-only-2158:no-tools:pass-at-1:source-model="Ling 3.0 Flash":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.

Ling 3.0 Flash vs Qwen3 235B A22B: common questions

Is Ling 3.0 Flash better than Qwen3 235B A22B?

Ling 3.0 Flash ranks higher on the ModelCap Index as of 10 September 2026: #78 against #81. 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 cheaper than Qwen3 235B A22B?

Ling 3.0 Flash is cheaper on output tokens: $0.063/1M against $1.82/1M. Input tokens are $0.021/1M for Ling 3.0 Flash and $0.455/1M for Qwen3 235B A22B. 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 $0.07 for Ling 3.0 Flash versus $1.82 for Qwen3 235B A22B. Ling 3.0 Flash costs 96.0% 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 or Qwen3 235B A22B?

Ling 3.0 Flash has the larger context window: 262K tokens against 131K.

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

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 and Qwen3 235B A22B open-weight models?

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

ModelCap currently lists 2 API providers for Ling 3.0 Flash and 1 for Qwen3 235B A22B, 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 vs Qwen3 235B A22B comparison?

Every figure comes from the sealed ModelCap dataset published 10 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