Model decision surface
Compare AI models
Start with Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and Qwen3.8 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
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Qwen3.8 Flash
Live dataset updated 9/15/2026, 9:19:37 PM UTC
Open 1200×630 evidence receipt| Field | Ling 3.0 Flash Fin InclusionAI | Qwen3.8 Flash Qwen |
|---|---|---|
| ModelCap position | #79 | #16 |
| Index score | 51.0 | 76.3 |
| Evidence | Inheritedfinetune of inclusionai/ling-3.0-flash · finetune (100%) | Measured1 public benchmark observation across 1 board |
| Input / 1M | $0.06 | $0.15 |
| Output / 1M | $0.18 | $0.47 |
| Pricing status | fresh | fresh |
| Context | 262K | 1M |
| Providers | 1 | 1 |
| Weight access | Open weights | Restricted license |
Decision facts
- Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is #79; Qwen3.8 Flash is #16 on the same current language board.
- Index scores are 51.0 for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and 76.3 for Qwen3.8 Flash. 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 Fin is Inherited; Qwen3.8 Flash is Measured.
- Listed output price per 1M tokens is $0.18 for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and $0.47 for Qwen3.8 Flash. For 1,000 requests with 2,000 input and 500 output tokens each (2M input + 0.5M output), the listed-rate estimate is $0.21 for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin versus $0.53 for Qwen3.8 Flash. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin costs 60.7% 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 Fin and 1,000,000 for Qwen3.8 Flash.
- Weight access differs: Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is open; Qwen3.8 Flash is restricted.
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 GPT-6 Astra#1 vs #3 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5 vs GPT-6 Astra#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
- Muse Spark 1.3 vs GPT-6 Astra#4 vs #3 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Qwen3.8 Max (0902)#1 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5 vs Qwen3.8 Max (0902)#2 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- GPT-6 Astra vs Qwen3.8 Max (0902)#3 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Muse Spark 1.3 vs Qwen3.8 Max (0902)#4 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash#1 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash#2 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GPT-6 Astra#6 vs #3 on the ModelCap Index
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.3#6 vs #4 on the ModelCap Index
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Max (0902)#6 vs #5 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
- GPT-5.6 Sol vs GPT-6 Astra#7 vs #3 on the ModelCap Index
- Muse Spark 1.3 vs GPT-5.6 Sol#4 vs #7 on the ModelCap Index
- GPT-5.6 Sol vs Qwen3.8 Max (0902)#7 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GPT-5.6 Sol#6 vs #7 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
- Kimi K3 vs GPT-6 Astra#8 vs #3 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.