Skip to content
ModelCap

Head-to-head comparison

Ling 3.0 Flash vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B

Ling 3.0 Flash (InclusionAI) and Qwen3.6 35B A3B (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 #80); and Ling 3.0 Flash is 14.3× cheaper per output token ($0.063/1M vs $0.90/1M).

Which should you choose?

Choose Ling 3.0 Flash if…

  • you want the stronger overall ModelCap Index position — #78 against #80 (50.9 vs 50.6 points).
  • API cost matters — $0.063/1M output tokens against $0.90/1M, about 14.3× cheaper.
  • your workload is prompt-heavy — input tokens cost $0.021/1M against $0.10/1M.
  • AA Terminal-Bench 2.1 is your yardstick — 55.4% against 44.9%.
  • AA Humanity's Last Exam is your yardstick — 23.7% against 22.2%.
  • you want the more recently listed model — Ling 3.0 Flash was listed 23 July 2026, Qwen3.6 35B A3B 27 April 2026.

Choose Qwen3.6 35B A3B if…

  • you want provider choice — 10 listed API providers against 2.

Ling 3.0 Flash vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B: specs, pricing and context

Specification comparison of Ling 3.0 Flash and Qwen3.6 35B A3B
FieldLing 3.0 FlashInclusionAIQwen3.6 35B A3BQwen
ModelCap Index position#78#80
Index score50.950.6
EvidenceEstimatedMeasured
Input price / 1M tokens$0.021$0.10
Output price / 1M tokens$0.063$0.90
Context window262K tokens262K tokens
Max output tokens33K236K
API providers listed210
Weight accessOpen weightsOpen weights
Input modalitiesTextText, Image, Video
First listed23 July 202627 April 2026
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 · 1 public benchmark observation across 1 board. Prices are the lowest listed API offer per million tokens observed on the OpenRouter catalogue.

Benchmark scores: Ling 3.0 Flash vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B

Public benchmark boards where Ling 3.0 Flash or Qwen3.6 35B A3B has a published result
BoardLing 3.0 FlashQwen3.6 35B A3BLeads
AA Intelligence IndexArtificial Analysis18.8intelligence-index:v4.3:reasoning-unspecifiedOnly 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=true44.9%terminal-bench:2.1:terminus-2:e2b:pass-at-1:3-repeats:source-model="Qwen3.6 35B A3B":reasoning=trueLing 3.0 Flash
AA τ²-Bench TelecomArtificial Analysis95.3%tau2:telecom:dual-control:pass-at-1:3-repeats:source-model="Qwen3.6 35B A3B":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=true22.2%hle:may-2025:text-only-2158:no-tools:pass-at-1:source-model="Qwen3.6 35B A3B":reasoning=trueLing 3.0 Flash

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 Qwen3.6 35B A3B: common questions

Is Ling 3.0 Flash better than Qwen3.6 35B A3B?

Ling 3.0 Flash ranks higher on the ModelCap Index as of 10 September 2026: #78 against #80. 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 Qwen3.6 35B A3B?

Ling 3.0 Flash is cheaper on output tokens: $0.063/1M against $0.90/1M. Input tokens are $0.021/1M for Ling 3.0 Flash and $0.10/1M for Qwen3.6 35B A3B. 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 $0.65 for Qwen3.6 35B A3B. Ling 3.0 Flash costs 88.7% 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 or Qwen3.6 35B A3B?

Both publish a 262K-token context window.

Which is better for coding, Ling 3.0 Flash or Qwen3.6 35B A3B?

AA Terminal-Bench 2.1: Ling 3.0 Flash 55.4%, Qwen3.6 35B A3B 44.9% — Ling 3.0 Flash leads.

Are Ling 3.0 Flash and Qwen3.6 35B A3B open-weight models?

Ling 3.0 Flash: Open weights. Qwen3.6 35B A3B: 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 Qwen3.6 35B A3B?

ModelCap currently lists 2 API providers for Ling 3.0 Flash and 10 for Qwen3.6 35B A3B, 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 Qwen3.6 35B A3B 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