Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

See the free Radar Brief
BenchLM
Cursor logo
Model A
Composer 2.5

Cursor

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Composer 2.5 vs Ling 3.0 Flash

Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

InclusionAI logo
Model B
Ling 3.0 Flash

InclusionAI

52.2/100

Estimated · Public rank #124

90% interval 40.7–63.7

Decision reading

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.

1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Ling 3.0 Flash

    Ling 3.0 Flash has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    Ling 3.0 Flash is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    Composer 2.5 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Composer 2.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Composer 2.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Ling 3.0 Flash has no comparable published API token rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
1
Composer 2.5 only
4
Ling 3.0 Flash only
21
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Directional only
Composer 2.5
52.0
Estimated · #52/151
Ling 3.0 Flash
40.0
Supported · #121/151
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 7 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Coding

Directional only
Composer 2.5
51.6
Supported · #63/183
Ling 3.0 Flash
42.8
Estimated · #126/183
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 6 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable
Composer 2.5
Not ranked
Ling 3.0 Flash
69.2
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Composer 2.5
Not ranked
Ling 3.0 Flash
45.9
Supported · #112/181
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 5 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Composer 2.5
Not ranked
Ling 3.0 Flash
73.7
Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Composer 2.5
Not ranked
Ling 3.0 Flash
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Composer 2.5
Not ranked
Ling 3.0 Flash
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Composer 2.5
Not ranked
Ling 3.0 Flash
75.6
#58/120
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Composer 2.5
$0.00175
Fits in one request
Ling 3.0 Flash
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Ling 3.0 Flash has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Composer 2.5
$0.0325
Fits in one request
Ling 3.0 Flash
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Ling 3.0 Flash has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Composer 2.5
$0.135
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Ling 3.0 Flash
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Composer 2.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Composer 2.5 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Ling 3.0 Flash has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

API model ID

Composer 2.5

Not sourced

Ling 3.0 Flash

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Composer 2.5

Not published

Ling 3.0 Flash

No comparable hosted API rate

InclusionAI Ling 3.0 Flash model card

Documented inputs

Composer 2.5

Not sourced

Ling 3.0 Flash

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Composer 2.5

Not sourced

Ling 3.0 Flash

Not sourced

Provider availability

Composer 2.5

Not sourced

Ling 3.0 Flash

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Composer 2.5

Reasoning

Ling 3.0 Flash

Reasoning

Weight access

Composer 2.5

Proprietary

Ling 3.0 Flash

Open Weight

License

Composer 2.5

Proprietary

Ling 3.0 Flash

Open Weight

Release date

Composer 2.5

2026-05-18

Ling 3.0 Flash

2026-07-23

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Ling 3.0 Flash has the larger documented window (262K).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence26 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Composer 2.569.3%
    Source
    Ling 3.0 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Composer 2.5—
    Ling 3.0 Flash65.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • skillsBench

    Composer 2.5—
    Ling 3.0 Flash44.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BFCL v4

    Composer 2.5—
    Ling 3.0 Flash73.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • WideResearch

    Composer 2.5—
    Ling 3.0 Flash73.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Composer 2.5—
    Ling 3.0 Flash72.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DRACO

    Composer 2.5—
    Ling 3.0 Flash70.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Composer 2.5—
    Ling 3.0 Flash50.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Composer 2.569.3%
    Source
    Ling 3.0 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Composer 2.579.8%
    Source
    Ling 3.0 Flash72.4%
    Source

    Composer 2.5 leads this result

  • cursorBench31

    Composer 2.563.2%
    Source
    Ling 3.0 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    Composer 2.556.1%
    Source
    Ling 3.0 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Composer 2.5—
    Ling 3.0 Flash56.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v5

    Composer 2.5—
    Ling 3.0 Flash82.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SciCode

    Composer 2.5—
    Ling 3.0 Flash41.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Composer 2.5—
    Ling 3.0 Flash84.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Composer 2.5—
    Ling 3.0 Flash65.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Composer 2.5—
    Ling 3.0 Flash85.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Composer 2.5—
    Ling 3.0 Flash85.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Composer 2.5—
    Ling 3.0 Flash22.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Composer 2.5—
    Ling 3.0 Flash84.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Composer 2.5—
    Ling 3.0 Flash82.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME26

    Composer 2.5—
    Ling 3.0 Flash93.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Composer 2.5—
    Ling 3.0 Flash87.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • IMOAnswerBench

    Composer 2.5—
    Ling 3.0 Flash83.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    Composer 2.5—
    Ling 3.0 Flash74.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Composer 2.5 or Ling 3.0 Flash?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Composer 2.5 or Ling 3.0 Flash?

Composer 2.5 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 51.6 to 42.8. Ling 3.0 Flash is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Composer 2.5 or Ling 3.0 Flash?

Composer 2.5 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 52 to 40. Composer 2.5 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, Composer 2.5 or Ling 3.0 Flash?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, Composer 2.5 or Ling 3.0 Flash?

Ling 3.0 Flash has the larger documented context window: 262K, compared with 200K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 4, 2026

Watch Composer 2.5 vs Ling 3.0 Flash

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.