Ling 3.0 Flash vs Sonar Pro
Ling 3.0 Flash leads Sonar Pro on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 20.1 to 7.6, and Ling 3.0 Flash costs 123.5x less per output token ($0.1215 vs $15.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 3 benchmarks have a result for both.
Ling 3.0 Flash or Sonar Pro: which to pick
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has a coding score, 29.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Sonar Pro has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
- Shared results
- 3
- Ling 3.0 Flash only
- 21
- Sonar Pro only
- 2
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 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
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Ling 3.0 Flash
Ling 3.0 Flash leads, 20.1 against 7.6.
Same board, both measured
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 200K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Ling 3.0 Flash
Ling 3.0 Flash $0.0001, Sonar Pro $0.011 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 Pro not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Reasoning, 22.4 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run): Ling 3.0 Flash 85.5% against Sonar Pro 57.8%, 27.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Ling 3.0 Flash $0.1215 against Sonar Pro $15.00 per million output tokens, 123.5x apart.
- Context window
- Ling 3.0 Flash takes 262K tokens, Sonar Pro 200K.
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 | Sonar Pro | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 2 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 3 | 0 |
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index9 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Sonar Pro | 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 |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 27.5% | Only Sonar Pro measured |
| SciCode | 42.0% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 30 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Sonar Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 20.1 | 7.6 | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Sonar Pro | 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 | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Sonar Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 84.8% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 85.5% | 57.8% | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 23.7% | 6.6% | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here | |||
MathNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Sonar Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 13 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Sonar Pro | 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 |
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 75.5% | Only Sonar Pro measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Sonar Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Sonar Pro | 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 | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Sonar Pro | 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 | Perplexity Sonar Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | inclusionAI | Perplexity |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | July 23, 2026 | March 7, 2025 |
| Context window | 262K | 200K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.0405 | $3.00 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.1215 | $15.00 |
| 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 Pro for coding?
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has a coding score, 29.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Sonar Pro 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 Pro?
Ling 3.0 Flash costs $0.0405 per million input tokens and $0.1215 per million output tokens; Sonar Pro costs $3.00 and $15.00. Cost per solved task is known for Ling 3.0 Flash only.
Which has the bigger context window, Ling 3.0 Flash or Sonar Pro?
Ling 3.0 Flash, with 262K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks is the Ling 3.0 Flash vs Sonar Pro comparison based on?
3 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Ling 3.0 Flash's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Sonar Pro's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.