Model decision surface
Compare AI models
Start with Ling 3.0 Flash and Inkling Small, 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
Ling 3.0 Flash vs Inkling Small
Live dataset updated 9/13/2026, 2:40:29 PM UTC
Open 1200×630 evidence receipt| Field | Ling 3.0 Flash InclusionAI | Inkling Small Thinking Machines |
|---|---|---|
| ModelCap position | #73 | #74 |
| Index score | 52.4 | 52.3 |
| Evidence | Estimated4 reported rows against measured corpus ladders (48%); publisher-corpus-prior over 186 held-out anchors (52%); shrunk 4 toward the measured corpus | Measured5 public benchmark observations across 5 boards |
| Input / 1M | $0.021 | $0.45 |
| Output / 1M | $0.063 | $1.20 |
| Pricing status | fresh | fresh |
| Context | 262K | 1M |
| Providers | 2 | 3 |
| Weight access | Open weights | Open weights |
Decision facts
- Ling 3.0 Flash is #73; Inkling Small is #74 on the same current language board.
- Index scores are 52.4 for Ling 3.0 Flash and 52.3 for Inkling Small. Their published uncertainty intervals overlap, so the rank difference alone does not establish a reliable capability advantage for your workload.
- Evidence differs: Ling 3.0 Flash is Estimated; Inkling Small is Measured.
- Listed output price per 1M tokens is $0.06 for Ling 3.0 Flash and $1.20 for Inkling Small. 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 $1.50 for Inkling Small. Ling 3.0 Flash costs 95.1% 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 262,144 tokens for Ling 3.0 Flash and 1,048,576 for Inkling Small.
- ModelCap currently lists 2 providers for Ling 3.0 Flash and 3 for Inkling Small.
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 Muse Spark 1.3#1 vs #2 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 5#1 vs #3 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5 vs Muse Spark 1.3#3 vs #2 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 Astra#1 vs #4 on the ModelCap Index
- Muse Spark 1.3 vs GPT-6 Astra#2 vs #4 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5 vs GPT-6 Astra#3 vs #4 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-5.6 Sol#1 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Muse Spark 1.3 vs GPT-5.6 Sol#2 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5 vs GPT-5.6 Sol#3 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- GPT-5.6 Sol vs GPT-6 Astra#5 vs #4 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM 5.3#1 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- Muse Spark 1.3 vs GLM 5.3#2 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5 vs GLM 5.3#3 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- GPT-6 Astra vs GLM 5.3#4 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- GPT-5.6 Sol vs GLM 5.3#5 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash#1 vs #7 on the ModelCap Index
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.3#7 vs #2 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash#3 vs #7 on the ModelCap Index
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GPT-6 Astra#7 vs #4 on the ModelCap Index
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GPT-5.6 Sol#7 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GLM 5.3#7 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Kimi K3#1 vs #8 on the ModelCap Index
- Muse Spark 1.3 vs Kimi K3#2 vs #8 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5 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.