Ling 3.0 Flash vs Solar Mini 4
Solar Mini 4 leads Ling 3.0 Flash on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 24.1 to 20.1, and Ling 3.0 Flash costs 1.6x less per output token ($0.1215 vs $0.20 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 4 benchmarks have a result for both.
Ling 3.0 Flash or Solar Mini 4: which to pick
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has a coding score, 29.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Solar Mini 4 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Solar Mini 4 for a larger context window (524K against 262K tokens) and work measured by SciCode or AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 4
- Ling 3.0 Flash only
- 20
- Solar Mini 4 only
- 3
- Like-for-like categories
- 4 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
Solar Mini 4
Solar Mini 4 leads, 24.1 against 20.1.
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
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only Solar Mini 4 has a Design Arena: websites result, 1158.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Solar Mini 4
Solar Mini 4 takes 524K tokens against 262K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Ling 3.0 Flash
Ling 3.0 Flash $0.0001, Solar Mini 4 $0.0001 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, Solar Mini 4 not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- General, 10.3 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): Ling 3.0 Flash 73.0% against Solar Mini 4 83.3%, 10.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Ling 3.0 Flash $0.1215 against Solar Mini 4 $0.20 per million output tokens, 1.6x apart.
- Context window
- Ling 3.0 Flash takes 262K tokens, Solar Mini 4 524K.
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 | Solar Mini 4 | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 1 | ||
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 1 | ||
| General | 0 | 1 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 4 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Solar Mini 4 | 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% | 47.6% | Solar Mini 4 |
| Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Solar Mini 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 20.1 | 24.1 | Solar Mini 4 |
| 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 | Solar Mini 4 | 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 index01
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Solar Mini 4 | 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% | 25.8% | Solar Mini 4 |
| 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 | Solar Mini 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 13 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Solar Mini 4 | 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 | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Solar Mini 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | Not measured | 1158 | Only Solar Mini 4 measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | Not measured | 1106 | Only Solar Mini 4 measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | Not measured | 1150 | Only Solar Mini 4 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Ling 3.0 Flash | Solar Mini 4 | 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% | 83.3% | Solar Mini 4 |
| 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 | Solar Mini 4 | 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 | Upstage Solar Mini 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | inclusionAI | Upstage |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | July 23, 2026 | September 23, 2026 |
| Context window | 262K | 524K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.0405 | $0.05 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.1215 | $0.20 |
| 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 Solar Mini 4 for coding?
Only Ling 3.0 Flash has a coding score, 29.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Solar Mini 4 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Solar Mini 4 for a larger context window (524K against 262K tokens) and work measured by SciCode or AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Ling 3.0 Flash or Solar Mini 4?
Ling 3.0 Flash costs $0.0405 per million input tokens and $0.1215 per million output tokens; Solar Mini 4 costs $0.05 and $0.20. Cost per solved task is known for Ling 3.0 Flash only.
Which has the bigger context window, Ling 3.0 Flash or Solar Mini 4?
Solar Mini 4, with 524K tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks is the Ling 3.0 Flash vs Solar Mini 4 comparison based on?
4 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 Solar Mini 4's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.