Skip to content
ModelCap

Head-to-head comparison

Ling 3.0 Flash vs Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct

Ling 3.0 Flash (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, Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct holds the stronger ModelCap Index position (#61 vs #71); and Ling 3.0 Flash is 30.2× cheaper per output token ($0.063/1M vs $1.90/1M).

Which should you choose?

Choose Ling 3.0 Flash if…

  • API cost matters — $0.063/1M output tokens against $1.90/1M, about 30.2× cheaper.
  • your workload is prompt-heavy — input tokens cost $0.021/1M against $0.21/1M.
  • AA Humanity's Last Exam is your yardstick — 23.7% against 6.6%.
  • you want the more recently listed model — Ling 3.0 Flash was listed 23 July 2026, Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct 23 September 2025.

Choose Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct if…

  • you want the stronger overall ModelCap Index position — #61 against #71 (56.1 vs 52.2 points).
  • you want provider choice — 5 listed API providers against 2.

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

Specification comparison of Ling 3.0 Flash and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct
FieldLing 3.0 FlashInclusionAIQwen3 VL 235B A22B InstructQwen
ModelCap Index position#71#61
Index score52.256.1
EvidenceMeasuredMeasured
Input price / 1M tokens$0.021$0.21
Output price / 1M tokens$0.063$1.90
Context window262K tokens262K tokens
Max output tokens33K33K
API providers listed25
Weight accessOpen weightsOpen weights
Input modalitiesTextText, Image
First listed23 July 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 vs Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct

Public benchmark boards where Ling 3.0 Flash or Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct has a published result
BoardLing 3.0 FlashQwen3 VL 235B A22B InstructLeads
Arena codingArena (LMArena)14651452–1478Only one result
AA Intelligence IndexArtificial Analysis20.6intelligence-index:v4.3:reasoning-unspecifiedOnly one result
AA τ²-Bench TelecomArtificial Analysis35.1%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 Analysis23.7%hle:may-2025:text-only-2158:no-tools:pass-at-1:source-model="Ling 3.0 Flash":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

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 VL 235B A22B Instruct: common questions

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

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct ranks higher on the ModelCap Index as of 15 September 2026: #61 against #71. 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 VL 235B A22B Instruct?

Ling 3.0 Flash is cheaper on output tokens: $0.063/1M against $1.90/1M. Input tokens are $0.021/1M for Ling 3.0 Flash 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 $0.07 for Ling 3.0 Flash versus $1.37 for Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct. Ling 3.0 Flash costs 94.6% 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 VL 235B A22B Instruct?

Both publish a 262K-token context window.

Which is better for coding, Ling 3.0 Flash 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 and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct open-weight models?

Ling 3.0 Flash: 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 and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct?

ModelCap currently lists 2 API providers for Ling 3.0 Flash 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 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