Ling 3.0 Flash vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct
Ling 3.0 Flash leads Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 20.1 to 6.7, and Ling 3.0 Flash costs 8.2x less per output token ($0.1215 vs $1.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 3 benchmarks have a result for both.
Ling 3.0 Flash or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct: which to pick
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has a coding score, 29.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct 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
- Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct only
- 32
- 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 6.7.
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 33K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Ling 3.0 Flash
Ling 3.0 Flash $0.0001, Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct $0.0012 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, Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Reasoning, 32.0 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run): Ling 3.0 Flash 85.5% against Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct 41.7%, 43.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Ling 3.0 Flash $0.1215 against Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct $1.00 per million output tokens, 8.2x apart.
- Context window
- Ling 3.0 Flash takes 262K tokens, Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct 33K.
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 | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 2 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 3 | 0 |
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index13 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aider polyglot | Not measured | 16.4% | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| SWE-bench Verified | Not measured | 47.0% | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| 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 | 29.5% | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| SciCode | 42.0% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | Not measured | 1276 | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | Not measured | 1261 | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 26 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 20.1 | 6.7 | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Not measured | 119.5 | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct | 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 | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 84.8% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.0 Flash measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 85.5% | 41.7% | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 23.7% | 3.5% | Ling 3.0 Flash |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | Not measured | 1251 | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | Not measured | 1221 | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | Not measured | 1269 | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GSM8K | Not measured | 93.0% | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: math | Not measured | 1251 | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | Not measured | 1243 | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index12 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct | 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 | 63.5% | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| MMLU | Not measured | 79.1% | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| AI2 Reasoning Challenge | Not measured | 70.5% | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: science | Not measured | 1221 | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | Not measured | 1187 | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | Not measured | 1257 | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | Not measured | 1224 | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index16 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct | 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 |
| HellaSwag | Not measured | 83.0% | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| WinoGrande | Not measured | 80.8% | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text | Not measured | 1230 | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | Not measured | 1223 | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | Not measured | 1174 | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: English | Not measured | 1248 | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | Not measured | 1205 | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | Not measured | 1222 | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | Not measured | 1228 | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | Not measured | 1222 | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | Not measured | 1251 | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | Not measured | 1191 | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | Not measured | 1150 | Only Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 30 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct | 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 | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | inclusionAI | Qwen |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | July 23, 2026 | November 11, 2024 |
| Context window | 262K | 33K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.0405 | $0.66 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.1215 | $1.00 |
| 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 Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct for coding?
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has a coding score, 29.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct 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 Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct?
Ling 3.0 Flash costs $0.0405 per million input tokens and $0.1215 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct costs $0.66 and $1.00. Cost per solved task is known for Ling 3.0 Flash only.
Which has the bigger context window, Ling 3.0 Flash or Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct?
Ling 3.0 Flash, with 262K tokens against 33K.
How many benchmarks is the Ling 3.0 Flash vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct comparison based on?
3 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 Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.