Ling 3.0 Flash VL vs Solar Mini 4
Ling 3.0 Flash VL leads Solar Mini 4 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 24.6 to 24.1, at about the same output price ($0.18 vs $0.20 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 4 benchmarks have a result for both.
Ling 3.0 Flash VL or Solar Mini 4: 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 1.1x cheaper ($0.18 vs $0.20 per million) and work measured by SciCode or Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.
- Shared results
- 4
- Ling 3.0 Flash VL only
- 3
- Solar Mini 4 only
- 4
- Like-for-like categories
- 4 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
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Ling 3.0 Flash VL
Ling 3.0 Flash VL leads, 24.6 against 24.1.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Ling 3.0 Flash VL has a AA Agentic Index result, 28.7.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only Solar Mini 4 has a Design Arena: websites result, 1159.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Solar Mini 4
Solar Mini 4 takes 524K tokens against 131K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
No call
Ling 3.0 Flash VL $0.0001, Solar Mini 4 $0.0001 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Ling 3.0 Flash VL not benchmarked, Solar Mini 4 not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- General, 5.0 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): Ling 3.0 Flash VL 78.3% against Solar Mini 4 83.3%, 5.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Ling 3.0 Flash VL $0.18 against Solar Mini 4 $0.20 per million output tokens, 1.1x apart.
- Context window
- Ling 3.0 Flash VL takes 131K tokens, Solar Mini 4 524K.
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 | Ling 3.0 Flash VL | Bars | Solar Mini 4 | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 1 | ||
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 1 | ||
| General | 0 | 1 | ||
| All shared boards | 1 | 3 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash VL | Solar Mini 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | 57.0 | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash VL measured |
| SciCode | 44.2% | 47.6% | Solar Mini 4 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 41 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash VL | Solar Mini 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 24.6 | 24.1 | Ling 3.0 Flash VL |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash VL | Solar Mini 4 | 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 | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash VL | Solar Mini 4 | 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% | 25.8% | Solar Mini 4 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here | |||
MathNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash VL | Solar Mini 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 14 boards here | |||
KnowledgeNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash VL | Solar Mini 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 20 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash VL | Solar Mini 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | Not measured | 1159 | Only Solar Mini 4 measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | Not measured | 1073 | Only Solar Mini 4 measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | Not measured | 1105 | Only Solar Mini 4 measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | Not measured | 1149 | Only Solar Mini 4 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash VL | Solar Mini 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 78.3% | 83.3% | Solar Mini 4 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 47 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash VL | Solar Mini 4 | 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
Same cost
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Solar Mini 4 costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Solar Mini 4 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 | Upstage Solar Mini 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | inclusionAI | Upstage |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | September 10, 2026 | September 23, 2026 |
| Context window | 131K | 524K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.06 | $0.05 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.18 | $0.20 |
| 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 Solar Mini 4 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 1.1x cheaper ($0.18 vs $0.20 per million) and work measured by SciCode or Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Ling 3.0 Flash VL or Solar Mini 4?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL costs $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.18 per million output tokens; Solar Mini 4 costs $0.05 and $0.20. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Ling 3.0 Flash VL or Solar Mini 4?
Solar Mini 4, with 524K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks is the Ling 3.0 Flash VL vs Solar Mini 4 comparison based on?
4 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Ling 3.0 Flash VL's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Solar Mini 4's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.