Model decision surface
Compare AI models
Start with DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and Ling 3.0 Flash, or choose any two current ranked language models. Compare capability evidence, price, context, provider availability, and weight access without pretending one field decides every use case.
Current public data
DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus vs Ling 3.0 Flash
Live dataset updated 9/15/2026, 7:09:11 PM UTC
Open 1200×630 evidence receipt| Field | DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus DeepSeek | Ling 3.0 Flash InclusionAI |
|---|---|---|
| ModelCap position | #63 | #68 |
| Index score | 56.8 | 55.1 |
| Evidence | Measured2 public benchmark observations across 2 boards | Estimated4 reported rows against measured corpus ladders (48%); global-corpus-prior over 176 held-out anchors (52%); shrunk 2.8 toward the measured corpus |
| Input / 1M | $0.27 | $0.021 |
| Output / 1M | $1.00 | $0.063 |
| Pricing status | fresh | fresh |
| Context | 164K | 262K |
| Providers | 4 | 2 |
| Weight access | Open weights | Open weights |
Decision facts
- DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus is #63; Ling 3.0 Flash is #68 on the same current language board.
- Index scores are 56.8 for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and 55.1 for Ling 3.0 Flash. Their published uncertainty intervals overlap, so the rank difference alone does not establish a reliable capability advantage for your workload.
- Evidence differs: DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus is Measured; Ling 3.0 Flash is Estimated.
- Listed output price per 1M tokens is $1.00 for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and $0.06 for Ling 3.0 Flash. For 1,000 requests with 2,000 input and 500 output tokens each (2M input + 0.5M output), the listed-rate estimate is $1.04 for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus versus $0.07 for Ling 3.0 Flash. Ling 3.0 Flash costs 92.9% less in this scenario. This excludes caching, batch discounts, prompt-length tiers, tool charges and retries; verify the selected endpoint before budgeting.
- Published context is 163,840 tokens for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and 262,144 for Ling 3.0 Flash.
- ModelCap currently lists 4 providers for DeepSeek V3.1 Terminus and 2 for Ling 3.0 Flash.
These are separate published fields, not a synthetic winner. ModelCap does not collapse price, access, context, and capability evidence into a hidden recommendation score.
Popular comparisons
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 5#1 vs #2 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash#1 vs #3 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash#2 vs #3 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Spark 1.3#1 vs #4 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5 vs Muse Spark 1.3#2 vs #4 on the ModelCap Index
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.3#3 vs #4 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview#1 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5 vs Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview#2 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs Gemini 3.8 Flash#5 vs #3 on the ModelCap Index
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs Muse Spark 1.3#5 vs #4 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 Astra#1 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5 vs GPT-6 Astra#2 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GPT-6 Astra#3 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- Muse Spark 1.3 vs GPT-6 Astra#4 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs GPT-6 Astra#5 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-5.6 Sol#1 vs #7 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5 vs GPT-5.6 Sol#2 vs #7 on the ModelCap Index
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GPT-5.6 Sol#3 vs #7 on the ModelCap Index
- Muse Spark 1.3 vs GPT-5.6 Sol#4 vs #7 on the ModelCap Index
- Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs GPT-5.6 Sol#5 vs #7 on the ModelCap Index
- GPT-5.6 Sol vs GPT-6 Astra#7 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Kimi K3#1 vs #8 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5 vs Kimi K3#2 vs #8 on the ModelCap Index
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Kimi K3#3 vs #8 on the ModelCap Index
Each comparison page is a permanent, shareable URL with the same live figures as this tool: ModelCap Index position, API pricing, context window, provider count, weight access and every shared benchmark board.