Compare AI models: Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Qwen3.8 Flash
- Ling 3.0 Flash FininclusionAIHollow points use fallbacks · hover for details
- Qwen3.8 FlashAlibabaHollow points use fallbacks · hover for details
ReasoningCodingCost efficiencyContext windowMultimodalTool use
| Model | Reasoning | Coding | Cost efficiency | Context window | Multimodal | Tool use |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ling 3.0 Flash Fin | 50/100 — Reasoning supported; no comparable benchmark | 50/100 — No data; neutral placeholder | 85/100 | 61/100 | 0/100 | 50/100 — Tool calling supported; no comparable benchmark |
| Qwen3.8 Flash | 50/100 — Reasoning supported; no comparable benchmark | 50/100 — No data; neutral placeholder | 73/100 | 80/100 | 50/100 | 50/100 — Tool calling supported; no comparable benchmark |
Overview
Author
Context length
262K
1M
Reasoning
True
True
Input modalities
Text
Text, Image, Video
Output modalities
Text
Text
Providers
Pricing
Input
$0.07/ 1M
$0.15/ 1M
Output
$0.22/ 1M
$0.47/ 1M
Cached input
$0.01/ 1M
$0.02/ 1M
MomentumLast 2 mo
Unique users
133K
156K
Completed sessions
3,566,237
1,134,516
Token share
0.26%
0.23%
Tokens
2.4T+100%
2.1T+100%
AUG 10OCT 4
AUG 10OCT 4
RetentionWeek 1
Returning users
Pending
60%5.5K user-weeks
Related comparisons. Other model pairs to check.
Nearby alternativeLing 3.0 Flash Fin vs Jamba MiniLing 3.0 Flash Fin·Jamba MiniNearby alternativeQwen3.8 Flash vs Jamba MiniQwen3.8 Flash·Jamba MiniRelated comparisonLing 3.0 Flash Fin vs Jamba LargeLing 3.0 Flash Fin·Jamba LargeRelated comparisonQwen3.8 Flash vs Jamba LargeQwen3.8 Flash·Jamba Large