Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Ling 3.0 Flash VL vs Mistral Nemo

Mistral Nemo costs 1.2x less per output token than Ling 3.0 Flash VL ($0.15 vs $0.18 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.

Ling 3.0 Flash VLinclusionAI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.18
Mistral NemoMistral AI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.15
vs $0.18 vs $0.15 per 1M output tokens. Mistral Nemo is 1.2x cheaper.

Ling 3.0 Flash VL or Mistral Nemo: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

No benchmark has tested both yet. Ling 3.0 Flash VL has results on AA Coding Index, SciCode and AA Intelligence Index; Mistral Nemo on Epoch Capabilities Index, MMLU and DTBench. Compare them on price and context instead.

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.

At a glance

Coding index
Ling 3.0 Flash VL not benchmarked, Mistral Nemo not benchmarked.
Widest category
None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
Widest single gap
None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
Output price
Ling 3.0 Flash VL $0.18 against Mistral Nemo $0.15 per million output tokens, 1.2x apart.
Context window
Both take 131K tokens.

Benchmark by benchmark

Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.

CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index2 boards measured
Coding benchmarks for Ling 3.0 Flash VL and Mistral Nemo
BenchmarkLing 3.0 Flash VLMistral NemoLeader
AA Coding Index57.0Not measuredOnly Ling 3.0 Flash VL measured
SciCode44.2%Not measuredOnly Ling 3.0 Flash VL measured
Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
Intelligence benchmarks for Ling 3.0 Flash VL and Mistral Nemo
BenchmarkLing 3.0 Flash VLMistral NemoLeader
AA Intelligence Index24.6Not measuredOnly Ling 3.0 Flash VL measured
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured118.7Only Mistral Nemo measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
Agentic work benchmarks for Ling 3.0 Flash VL and Mistral Nemo
BenchmarkLing 3.0 Flash VLMistral NemoLeader
AA Agentic Index28.7Not measuredOnly Ling 3.0 Flash VL measured
Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
Reasoning benchmarks for Ling 3.0 Flash VL and Mistral Nemo
BenchmarkLing 3.0 Flash VLMistral NemoLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)86.2%Not measuredOnly Ling 3.0 Flash VL measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)22.0%Not measuredOnly Ling 3.0 Flash VL measured
Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
Knowledge benchmarks for Ling 3.0 Flash VL and Mistral Nemo
BenchmarkLing 3.0 Flash VLMistral NemoLeader
MMLUNot measured65.3%Only Mistral Nemo measured
Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
General benchmarks for Ling 3.0 Flash VL and Mistral Nemo
BenchmarkLing 3.0 Flash VLMistral NemoLeader
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)78.3%Not measuredOnly Ling 3.0 Flash VL measured
DTBenchNot measured48.6%Only Mistral Nemo measured
Neither model has a result on the other 44 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 VL$0.0001Fits in one request
Mistral Nemo$0.0002Fits in one request

Ling 3.0 Flash VL costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Ling 3.0 Flash VL$0.0035Fits in one request
Mistral Nemo$0.0080Fits in one request

Ling 3.0 Flash VL costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Ling 3.0 Flash VL$0.014Exceeds the context window
Mistral Nemo$0.032Exceeds the context window

Ling 3.0 Flash VL 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.

Specifications of Ling 3.0 Flash VL and Mistral Nemo
SpecificationinclusionAI Ling 3.0 Flash VLMistral Nemo
MakerinclusionAIMistral AI
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 10, 2026July 19, 2024
Context window131K131K
Input $/Mtok$0.06$0.15
Output $/Mtok$0.18$0.15
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Ling 3.0 Flash VL better than Mistral Nemo for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Which is cheaper, Ling 3.0 Flash VL or Mistral Nemo?

Ling 3.0 Flash VL costs $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.18 per million output tokens; Mistral Nemo costs $0.15 and $0.15. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Ling 3.0 Flash VL or Mistral Nemo?

Neither: both take 131K tokens.

Has any benchmark tested both Ling 3.0 Flash VL and Mistral Nemo?

No benchmark has tested both yet. Ling 3.0 Flash VL has results on AA Coding Index, SciCode and AA Intelligence Index; Mistral Nemo on Epoch Capabilities Index, MMLU and DTBench. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 22, 2026.

Compare next