Ling 3.0 Flash vs Qwen-Plus
Ling 3.0 Flash costs 6.4x less per output token than Qwen-Plus ($0.1215 vs $0.78 per million). Updated October 22, 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
- $0.78
Ling 3.0 Flash or Qwen-Plus: which to pick
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has a coding score, 29.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen-Plus has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Qwen-Plus for a larger context window (1M against 262K tokens).
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); Qwen-Plus on LMArena Text: coding, LMArena Text: software and IT and GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run). 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
Qwen-Plus
Qwen-Plus takes 1M tokens against 262K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Ling 3.0 Flash
Ling 3.0 Flash $0.0001, Qwen-Plus $0.0006 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, Qwen-Plus 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 Qwen-Plus $0.78 per million output tokens, 6.4x apart.
- Context window
- Ling 3.0 Flash takes 262K tokens, Qwen-Plus 1M.
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 Index10 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Qwen-Plus | 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 |
| LMArena Text: coding | Not measured | 1328 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | Not measured | 1343 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 29 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Qwen-Plus | 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 | Qwen-Plus | 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 index7 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Qwen-Plus | 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 |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | Not measured | 48.1% | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | Not measured | 1317 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | Not measured | 1328 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | Not measured | 1333 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Qwen-Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | Not measured | 17.8% | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| MATH level 5 | Not measured | 65.3% | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: math | Not measured | 1326 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | Not measured | 1332 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index9 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Qwen-Plus | 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 |
| LMArena Text: science | Not measured | 1352 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | Not measured | 1350 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | Not measured | 1349 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | Not measured | 1303 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index17 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Qwen-Plus | 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 |
| DTBench | Not measured | 81.1% | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMCA | Not measured | 24.0% | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text | Not measured | 1326 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | Not measured | 1303 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | Not measured | 1292 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: English | Not measured | 1339 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | Not measured | 1310 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | Not measured | 1347 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | Not measured | 1251 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | Not measured | 1323 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | Not measured | 1336 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | Not measured | 1324 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | Not measured | 1296 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | Not measured | 1270 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 29 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 | Qwen-Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | inclusionAI | Qwen |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | July 23, 2026 | February 1, 2025 |
| Context window | 262K | 1M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.0405 | $0.26 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.1215 | $0.78 |
| 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 Qwen-Plus for coding?
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has a coding score, 29.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen-Plus has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Qwen-Plus for a larger context window (1M against 262K tokens).
Which is cheaper, Ling 3.0 Flash or Qwen-Plus?
Ling 3.0 Flash costs $0.0405 per million input tokens and $0.1215 per million output tokens; Qwen-Plus costs $0.26 and $0.78. Cost per solved task is known for Ling 3.0 Flash only.
Which has the bigger context window, Ling 3.0 Flash or Qwen-Plus?
Qwen-Plus, with 1M tokens against 262K.
Has any benchmark tested both Ling 3.0 Flash and Qwen-Plus?
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); Qwen-Plus on LMArena Text: coding, LMArena Text: software and IT and GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run). Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 22, 2026.