Ling 3.0 Flash vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
Ling 3.0 Flash leads Nemotron 3.5 Lightning on coding, 29.6 to 22.6 on the Vibe Coding Index, and Ling 3.0 Flash costs 1.2x less per output token ($0.1215 vs $0.147 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 16 benchmarks have a result for both.
Ling 3.0 Flash or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning: which to pick
Pick Ling 3.0 Flash for coding: it scores 29.6 on the Vibe Coding Index against 22.6 for Nemotron 3.5 Lightning.
Pick Nemotron 3.5 Lightning for work measured by Code migration (Vals AI) or Legal Research Bench (Vals AI), where it leads.
- Shared results
- 16
- Ling 3.0 Flash only
- 8
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning only
- 4
- Like-for-like categories
- 6 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
Ling 3.0 Flash
Ling 3.0 Flash scores 29.6 against 22.6.
2 benchmarks behind each score
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Ling 3.0 Flash
Ling 3.0 Flash leads, 20.1 against 12.9.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
Ling 3.0 Flash
Ling 3.0 Flash leads, 19.3 against 3.5.
Same board, both measured
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
Long documents
Listed context window
No call
Both take 262K tokens.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Ling 3.0 Flash
Ling 3.0 Flash $0.0001, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning $0.0001 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
Ling 3.0 Flash
Ling 3.0 Flash $0.05, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning $0.06.
Published attempt cost and pass rate
At a glance
- Coding index
- Ling 3.0 Flash 29.6 from 2 benchmarks, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 22.6 from 2 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- General, 44.6 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- MedScribe (Vals AI): Ling 3.0 Flash 80.9% against Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 4.3%, 76.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Ling 3.0 Flash $0.1215 against Nemotron 3.5 Lightning $0.147 per million output tokens, 1.2x apart.
- Context window
- Both take 262K tokens.
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 | Bars | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 5 | 1 | ||
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Agentic work | 3 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 2 | 0 | ||
| Knowledge | 1 | 0 | ||
| General | 2 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 14 | 2 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index51
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | 50.6 | 26.8 | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 84.0% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | 65.2% | 52.8% | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 2.9% | 0.0% | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | 0.0% | 3.0% | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning |
| ProgramBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 0.0% | Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI) | 50.2% | 10.9% | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| SkillsBench (Vals AI) | 27.9% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| CyberBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 29.5% | Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured |
| SciCode | 42.0% | 32.1% | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 769.2 | Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 32 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 20.1 | 12.9 | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index31
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | 19.3 | 3.5 | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | 30.3% | 18.5% | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 2.6% | Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | 0.0% | 2.9% | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | 25.0% | 17.0% | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 84.8% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 85.5% | 74.3% | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 23.7% | 10.6% | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here | |||
MathNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 14 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | 82.0% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 79.7% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | 61.9% | 54.2% | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | 70.7% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | 32.3% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI) | 50.7% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | 80.9% | 4.3% | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 73.0% | 60.3% | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 45 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning | 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 | inclusionAI Ling 3.0 Flash | NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | inclusionAI | NVIDIA |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | July 23, 2026 | August 11, 2026 |
| Context window | 262K | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.0405 | $0.0534 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.1215 | $0.147 |
| Coding index | 29.6 | 22.6 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 2 | 2 |
| Cost per solved task | $0.05 | $0.06 |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Ling 3.0 Flash better than Nemotron 3.5 Lightning for coding?
Pick Ling 3.0 Flash for coding: it scores 29.6 on the Vibe Coding Index against 22.6 for Nemotron 3.5 Lightning. Pick Nemotron 3.5 Lightning for work measured by Code migration (Vals AI) or Legal Research Bench (Vals AI), where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Ling 3.0 Flash or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning?
Ling 3.0 Flash costs $0.0405 per million input tokens and $0.1215 per million output tokens; Nemotron 3.5 Lightning costs $0.0534 and $0.147. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, Ling 3.0 Flash costs $0.05 and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning $0.06.
Which has the bigger context window, Ling 3.0 Flash or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning?
Neither: both take 262K tokens.
How many benchmarks is the Ling 3.0 Flash vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning comparison based on?
16 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Ling 3.0 Flash's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.