Ling 3.0 Flash vs Sonar Deep Research
Ling 3.0 Flash costs 65.8x less per output token than Sonar Deep Research ($0.1215 vs $8.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.
- Coding
- 29.6
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.1215
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $8.00
Ling 3.0 Flash or Sonar Deep Research: which to pick
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has a coding score, 29.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Sonar Deep Research has none, 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 has results on AA Coding Index, LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) and SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI); Sonar Deep Research has none yet. 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
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
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
Ling 3.0 Flash $0.0001, Sonar Deep Research $0.0060 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
- Ling 3.0 Flash 29.6 from 2 benchmarks, Sonar Deep Research 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 $0.1215 against Sonar Deep Research $8.00 per million output tokens, 65.8x apart.
- Context window
- Ling 3.0 Flash takes 262K tokens, Sonar Deep Research 128K.
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 Index8 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Sonar Deep Research | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | 50.6 | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 84.0% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | 65.2% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 2.9% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Code migration (Vals AI) | 0.0% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI) | 50.2% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| SkillsBench (Vals AI) | 27.9% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| SciCode | 42.0% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Sonar Deep Research | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 20.1 | Not measured | 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 index4 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Sonar Deep Research | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | 19.3 | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Finance Agent (Vals AI) | 30.3% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | 0.0% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI) | 25.0% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Sonar Deep Research | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 84.8% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 85.5% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 23.7% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Sonar Deep Research | 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% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| 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 13 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Sonar Deep Research | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI) | 50.7% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | 80.9% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 73.0% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 43 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 | Perplexity Sonar Deep Research |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | inclusionAI | Perplexity |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | July 23, 2026 | March 7, 2025 |
| Context window | 262K | 128K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.0405 | $2.00 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.1215 | $8.00 |
| Coding index | 29.6 | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 2 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | $0.05 | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Ling 3.0 Flash better than Sonar Deep Research for coding?
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has a coding score, 29.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Sonar Deep Research has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
Which is cheaper, Ling 3.0 Flash or Sonar Deep Research?
Ling 3.0 Flash costs $0.0405 per million input tokens and $0.1215 per million output tokens; Sonar Deep Research costs $2.00 and $8.00. Cost per solved task is known for Ling 3.0 Flash only.
Which has the bigger context window, Ling 3.0 Flash or Sonar Deep Research?
Ling 3.0 Flash, with 262K tokens against 128K.
Has any benchmark tested both Ling 3.0 Flash and Sonar Deep Research?
No benchmark has tested both yet. Ling 3.0 Flash has results on AA Coding Index, LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) and SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI); Sonar Deep Research has none yet. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 21, 2026.