GPT-4o vs Ling 3.0 Flash
Ling 3.0 Flash costs 82.3x less per output token than GPT-4o ($0.1215 vs $10.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 3 benchmarks have a result for both.
GPT-4o or Ling 3.0 Flash: which to pick
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has a coding score, 29.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-4o has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
- Shared results
- 3
- GPT-4o only
- 24
- Ling 3.0 Flash only
- 21
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 of 9
Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has a AA Intelligence Index result, 20.1.
Directional only
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has a AA Agentic Index result, 19.3.
Directional only
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
No call
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has a GPQA Diamond result, 84.8%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
No call
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has a MMLU Pro result, 82.0%.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only GPT-4o has a Design Arena: websites result, 831.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Ling 3.0 Flash
Ling 3.0 Flash takes 262K tokens against 128K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Ling 3.0 Flash
GPT-4o $0.0075, Ling 3.0 Flash $0.0001 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
No call
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has the number, $0.05.
Directional only
At a glance
- Coding index
- GPT-4o not benchmarked, Ling 3.0 Flash 29.6 from 2 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Reasoning, 26.3 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run): GPT-4o 54.3% against Ling 3.0 Flash 85.5%, 31.2 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- GPT-4o $10.00 against Ling 3.0 Flash $0.1215 per million output tokens, 82.3x apart.
- Context window
- GPT-4o takes 128K tokens, Ling 3.0 Flash 262K.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
| Category | GPT-4o | Bars | Ling 3.0 Flash | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 0 | 2 | ||
| General | 0 | 1 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 3 |
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index15 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | Ling 3.0 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 38.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| SWE-bench Lite | 38.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| SWE-bench (full test set) | 18.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| SWE-bench Multimodal | 30.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 50.6 | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 84.0% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | Not measured | 65.2% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 2.9% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | Not measured | 0.0% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI) | Not measured | 50.2% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| SkillsBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 27.9% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 30.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 42.0% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 8.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| SciCode | 1.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | Ling 3.0 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | Not measured | 20.1 | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | Ling 3.0 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 19.3 | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | Not measured | 30.3% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 0.0% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | Not measured | 25.0% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 25.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| GDPval | 9.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 35 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | Ling 3.0 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | Not measured | 84.8% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 54.3% | 85.5% | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 2.4% | 23.7% | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| ARC-AGI | 4.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 0.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | Ling 3.0 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Math Index | 6.0 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 6.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | Ling 3.0 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | Not measured | 82.0% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 79.7% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | Not measured | 61.9% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | Not measured | 70.7% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | Not measured | 32.3% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 74.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| MMLU | 88.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | Ling 3.0 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 831 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | 882 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | 906 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Design Arena: data viz | 858 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | 868 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 860 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | Ling 3.0 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 50.7% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | Not measured | 80.9% | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| IFBench | 34.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 49.3% | 73.0% | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| DTBench | 64.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| LMCA | 16.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o | Ling 3.0 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
Ling 3.0 Flash costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Ling 3.0 Flash costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Ling 3.0 Flash costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | OpenAI GPT-4o | inclusionAI Ling 3.0 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | OpenAI | inclusionAI |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | May 13, 2024 | July 23, 2026 |
| Context window | 128K | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $2.50 | $0.0405 |
| Output $/Mtok | $10.00 | $0.1215 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | 29.6 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 2 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | $0.05 |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GPT-4o better than Ling 3.0 Flash for coding?
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has a coding score, 29.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-4o has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
Which is cheaper, GPT-4o or Ling 3.0 Flash?
GPT-4o costs $2.50 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens; Ling 3.0 Flash costs $0.0405 and $0.1215. Cost per solved task is known for Ling 3.0 Flash only.
Which has the bigger context window, GPT-4o or Ling 3.0 Flash?
Ling 3.0 Flash, with 262K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks is the GPT-4o vs Ling 3.0 Flash comparison based on?
3 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GPT-4o's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Ling 3.0 Flash's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.