Ling 3.0 Flash vs Fugu Ultra v2
Ling 3.0 Flash costs 246.9x less per output token than Fugu Ultra v2 ($0.1215 vs $30.00 per million). Updated October 23, 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
- $30.00
Ling 3.0 Flash or Fugu Ultra v2: which to pick
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has a coding score, 29.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Fugu Ultra v2 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Fugu Ultra v2 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); Fugu Ultra v2 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
Fugu Ultra v2
Fugu Ultra v2 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, Fugu Ultra v2 $0.020 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, Fugu Ultra v2 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 Fugu Ultra v2 $30.00 per million output tokens, 246.9x apart.
- Context window
- Ling 3.0 Flash takes 262K tokens, Fugu Ultra v2 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 Index8 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Fugu Ultra v2 | 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 35 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Fugu Ultra v2 | 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 | Fugu Ultra v2 | 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 38 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Fugu Ultra v2 | 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 20 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Fugu Ultra v2 | 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 15 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Fugu Ultra v2 | 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 45 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 | Sakana Fugu Ultra v2 |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | inclusionAI | Sakana |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | July 23, 2026 | September 11, 2026 |
| Context window | 262K | 1M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.0405 | $5.00 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.1215 | $30.00 |
| 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 Fugu Ultra v2 for coding?
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has a coding score, 29.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Fugu Ultra v2 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Fugu Ultra v2 for a larger context window (1M against 262K tokens).
Which is cheaper, Ling 3.0 Flash or Fugu Ultra v2?
Ling 3.0 Flash costs $0.0405 per million input tokens and $0.1215 per million output tokens; Fugu Ultra v2 costs $5.00 and $30.00. Cost per solved task is known for Ling 3.0 Flash only.
Which has the bigger context window, Ling 3.0 Flash or Fugu Ultra v2?
Fugu Ultra v2, with 1M tokens against 262K.
Has any benchmark tested both Ling 3.0 Flash and Fugu Ultra v2?
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); Fugu Ultra v2 has none yet. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 23, 2026.