Model decision surface
Compare AI models
Start with Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and Step 3.7 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 Step 3.7 Flash
Live dataset updated 9/9/2026, 8:46:14 PM UTC
Open 1200×630 evidence receipt| Field | Ling 3.0 Flash Fin InclusionAI | Step 3.7 Flash StepFun |
|---|---|---|
| ModelCap position | #84 | #81 |
| Index score | 46.1 | 48.2 |
| Evidence | Inheritedfinetune of inclusionai/ling-3.0-flash · finetune (100%) | Estimated3 reported rows against measured corpus ladders (14%); global-corpus-prior over 182 held-out anchors (19%); measured predecessor stepfun/step-3.5-flash less the succession penalty (67%); shrunk 1.3 up toward the measured corpus |
| Input / 1M | $0.06 | $0.20 |
| Output / 1M | $0.18 | $1.15 |
| Pricing status | fresh | fresh |
| Context | 262K | 262K |
| Providers | 1 | 3 |
| Weight access | Open weights | Open weights |
Decision facts
- Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is #84; Step 3.7 Flash is #81 on the same current language board.
- Index scores are 46.1 for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and 48.2 for Step 3.7 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; Step 3.7 Flash is Estimated.
- Listed output price per 1M tokens is $0.18 for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and $1.15 for Step 3.7 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 $0.97 for Step 3.7 Flash. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin costs 78.5% 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 262,144 for Step 3.7 Flash.
- ModelCap currently lists 1 providers for Ling 3.0 Flash Fin and 3 for Step 3.7 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
- Muse Spark 1.3 vs GPT-6 Astra#2 vs #1 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 Astra#3 vs #1 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Spark 1.3#3 vs #2 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5 vs GPT-6 Astra#4 vs #1 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5 vs Muse Spark 1.3#4 vs #2 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 5#3 vs #4 on the ModelCap Index
- GPT-5.6 Sol vs GPT-6 Astra#5 vs #1 on the ModelCap Index
- Muse Spark 1.3 vs GPT-5.6 Sol#2 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-5.6 Sol#3 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5 vs GPT-5.6 Sol#4 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Kimi K3 vs GPT-6 Astra#6 vs #1 on the ModelCap Index
- Muse Spark 1.3 vs Kimi K3#2 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Kimi K3#3 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5 vs Kimi K3#4 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- Kimi K3 vs GPT-5.6 Sol#6 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GPT-6 Astra#7 vs #1 on the ModelCap Index
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.3#7 vs #2 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash#3 vs #7 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash#4 vs #7 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 Kimi K3#7 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- GPT-6 Astra vs GLM 5.3#1 vs #8 on the ModelCap Index
- Muse Spark 1.3 vs GLM 5.3#2 vs #8 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GLM 5.3#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.