Ling 3.0 Flash VL vs Qwen3.6 Flash
Ling 3.0 Flash VL costs 6.3x less per output token than Qwen3.6 Flash ($0.18 vs $1.125 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.18
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $1.125
Ling 3.0 Flash VL or Qwen3.6 Flash: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Ling 3.0 Flash VL for output tokens 6.3x cheaper ($0.18 vs $1.125 per million).
No benchmark has tested both yet. Ling 3.0 Flash VL has results on AA Coding Index, SciCode and AA Intelligence Index; Qwen3.6 Flash on ALE-Bench, Epoch Capabilities Index and GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run). 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only Ling 3.0 Flash VL has a AA Intelligence Index result, 24.6.
Directional only
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Ling 3.0 Flash VL has a AA Agentic Index result, 28.7.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen3.6 Flash
Qwen3.6 Flash takes 1M tokens against 131K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Ling 3.0 Flash VL
Ling 3.0 Flash VL $0.0001, Qwen3.6 Flash $0.0008 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Ling 3.0 Flash VL not benchmarked, Qwen3.6 Flash 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 Qwen3.6 Flash $1.125 per million output tokens, 6.3x apart.
- Context window
- Ling 3.0 Flash VL takes 131K tokens, Qwen3.6 Flash 1M.
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 Index3 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash VL | Qwen3.6 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | 57.0 | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash VL measured |
| SciCode | 44.2% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash VL measured |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 326.4 | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash VL | Qwen3.6 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 24.6 | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash VL measured |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Not measured | 142.9 | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash VL | Qwen3.6 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | 28.7 | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash VL measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 41 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash VL | Qwen3.6 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 86.2% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash VL measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 22.0% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash VL measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | Not measured | 83.3% | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| SimpleBench | Not measured | 35.2% | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| Chess puzzles | Not measured | 12.0% | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | Not measured | 18.0% | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash VL | Qwen3.6 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | Not measured | 84.4% | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | Not measured | 22.5% | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash VL | Qwen3.6 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SimpleQA Verified | Not measured | 15.9% | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash VL | Qwen3.6 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 78.3% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash VL measured |
| DTBench | Not measured | 77.1% | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| LMCA | Not measured | 31.0% | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 45 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 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Ling 3.0 Flash VL costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
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.
| Specification | inclusionAI Ling 3.0 Flash VL | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | inclusionAI | Qwen |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | September 10, 2026 | April 27, 2026 |
| Context window | 131K | 1M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.06 | $0.1875 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.18 | $1.125 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Ling 3.0 Flash VL better than Qwen3.6 Flash for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Ling 3.0 Flash VL for output tokens 6.3x cheaper ($0.18 vs $1.125 per million).
Which is cheaper, Ling 3.0 Flash VL or Qwen3.6 Flash?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL costs $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.18 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Flash costs $0.1875 and $1.125. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Ling 3.0 Flash VL or Qwen3.6 Flash?
Qwen3.6 Flash, with 1M tokens against 131K.
Has any benchmark tested both Ling 3.0 Flash VL and Qwen3.6 Flash?
No benchmark has tested both yet. Ling 3.0 Flash VL has results on AA Coding Index, SciCode and AA Intelligence Index; Qwen3.6 Flash on ALE-Bench, Epoch Capabilities Index and GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run). Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 22, 2026.