Agentic
Like-for-like- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 50.6
- Supported · #61/151
- Ling 3.0 Flash
- 40.0
- Supported · #121/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 8 vs 7 public rows
- Reading
- Gemini 3.5 Flash leads · intervals overlap
Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Ling 3.0 Flash
Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public score, 70 versus 52.2, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
9 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
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.
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads on the public agentic lane, 50.6 to 40, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Gemini 3.5 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
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
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
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.
18 Gemini 3.5 Flash only
9 Shared
13 Ling 3.0 Flash only
- Shared results
- 9
- Gemini 3.5 Flash only
- 18
- Ling 3.0 Flash only
- 13
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 / 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.
Knowledge
Like-for-like- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 68.5
- Supported · #19/181
- Ling 3.0 Flash
- 45.9
- Supported · #112/181
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 5 public rows
- Reading
- Gemini 3.5 Flash leads · intervals overlap
Coding
Directional only- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 57.7
- Supported · #34/183
- Ling 3.0 Flash
- 42.8
- Estimated · #126/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 7 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Instruction following
Directional only- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 86.9
- #34/120
- Ling 3.0 Flash
- 75.6
- #58/120
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 60.3
- #17/22
- Ling 3.0 Flash
- 69.2
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 55.2
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Ling 3.0 Flash
- 73.7
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- Not ranked
- Ling 3.0 Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- 86.9
- #6/48
- Ling 3.0 Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Gemini 3.5 Flash | Ling 3.0 Flash | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 50.6Supported · #61/151 | 40.0Supported · #121/151 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 8 vs 7 public rows | Gemini 3.5 Flash leads · intervals overlap |
| Knowledge | 68.5Supported · #19/181 | 45.9Supported · #112/181 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 4 vs 5 public rows | Gemini 3.5 Flash leads · intervals overlap |
| Coding | 57.7Supported · #34/183 | 42.8Estimated · #126/183 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 7 vs 6 public rows | Directional only |
| Instruction following | 86.9#34/120 | 75.6#58/120 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 60.3#17/22 | 69.2Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 55.2Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 73.7Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 86.9#6/48 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | 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.
HLE
Knowledge
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 40.2%Ling 3.0 Flash: 22.7%Normalized gap 17.5Gemini 3.5 Flash source Ling 3.0 Flash sourceMMLU-Pro (Vals)
Knowledge
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 89.5%Ling 3.0 Flash: 82.0%Normalized gap 7.5Gemini 3.5 Flash source Ling 3.0 Flash sourceLiveCodeBench (Vals)
Coding
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 87.6%Ling 3.0 Flash: 84.0%Normalized gap 3.6Gemini 3.5 Flash source Ling 3.0 Flash sourceSWE-bench Pro
Coding
Gemini 3.5 Flash: 55.1%Ling 3.0 Flash: 56.6%Normalized gap 1.5Gemini 3.5 Flash source Ling 3.0 Flash source
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
- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- $0.006
- 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
- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- $0.102
- 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
- Gemini 3.5 Flash
- $0.15
- Fits in one request
- Ling 3.0 Flash
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
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.
SpecificationGemini 3.5 FlashLing 3.0 Flash
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Ling 3.0 Flash
API model ID
Gemini 3.5 Flash
gemini-3.5-flash
Google Gemini API pricingLing 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.
Gemini 3.5 Flash
$0.15 per 1M cached input tokens
Google Gemini API pricingLing 3.0 Flash
No comparable hosted API rate
InclusionAI Ling 3.0 Flash model cardDocumented inputs
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Ling 3.0 Flash
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Ling 3.0 Flash
Not sourced
Provider availability
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Not sourced
Ling 3.0 Flash
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Reasoning
Ling 3.0 Flash
Reasoning
Weight access
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Proprietary
Ling 3.0 Flash
Open Weight
License
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Proprietary
Ling 3.0 Flash
Open Weight
Release date
Gemini 3.5 Flash
2026-05-19
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
- Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public score, 70 versus 52.2, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Gemini 3.5 Flash has the larger documented window (1M).
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 evidence40 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Gemini 3.5 Flash83.6%SourceLing 3.0 Flash65.5%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
Toolathlon
Gemini 3.5 Flash56.5%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Gemini 3.5 Flash78.4%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
Finance Agent v2
Gemini 3.5 Flash57.9%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Gemini 3.5 Flash61.85%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash18.0%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash74.2%SourceLing 3.0 Flash50.2%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
skillsBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Ling 3.0 Flash44.8%SourceNot directly comparable
BFCL v4
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Ling 3.0 Flash73.0%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Ling 3.0 Flash73.6%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Ling 3.0 Flash72.2%SourceNot directly comparable
DRACO
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Ling 3.0 Flash70.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Gemini 3.5 Flash76.2%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Gemini 3.5 Flash55.1%SourceLing 3.0 Flash56.6%SourceLing 3.0 Flash leads this result
Vibe Code Bench
Gemini 3.5 Flash48.68%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
cursorBench31
Gemini 3.5 Flash49.8%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Gemini 3.5 Flash48.8%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash87.6%SourceLing 3.0 Flash84.0%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
SWE-bench (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash78.8%SourceLing 3.0 Flash65.2%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Ling 3.0 Flash72.4%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v5
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Ling 3.0 Flash82.8%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Ling 3.0 Flash41.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA-D
Gemini 3.5 Flash92.7%SourceLing 3.0 Flash85.0%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
HLE
Gemini 3.5 Flash40.2%SourceLing 3.0 Flash22.7%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash92.7%SourceLing 3.0 Flash84.8%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Gemini 3.5 Flash89.5%SourceLing 3.0 Flash82.0%SourceGemini 3.5 Flash leads this result
GPQA
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Ling 3.0 Flash85.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Gemini 3.5 Flash38.966%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Gemini 3.5 Flash14.583%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
AIME26
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Ling 3.0 Flash93.2%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Ling 3.0 Flash87.0%SourceNot directly comparable
IMOAnswerBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Ling 3.0 Flash83.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
Instruction following
IFBench
Gemini 3.5 Flash—Ling 3.0 Flash74.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Ling 3.0 Flash?
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the higher public score, 70 versus 52.2, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Ling 3.0 Flash?
Gemini 3.5 Flash scores higher for coding on the public lane, 57.7 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, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Ling 3.0 Flash?
Gemini 3.5 Flash leads the public agentic tasks lane, 50.6 to 40, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Which costs less, Gemini 3.5 Flash 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, Gemini 3.5 Flash or Ling 3.0 Flash?
Gemini 3.5 Flash has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 4, 2026
Watch Gemini 3.5 Flash vs Ling 3.0 Flash
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.