Coding
Like-for-like- Kimi K3
- 68.0
- Supported · #6/151
- Ling 3.0 Flash
- 40.4
- Supported · #113/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 13 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Kimi K3 leads
Kimi K3 vs Ling 3.0 Flash
Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Kimi K3 has the higher public score, 74.82 versus 47.51, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
10 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.
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Kimi K3
Kimi K3 leads on the public coding lane, 68 to 40.4, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Confidence: stronger
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Kimi K3
Kimi K3 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Ling 3.0 Flash 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
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.
34 Kimi K3 only
10 Shared
12 Ling 3.0 Flash only
- Shared results
- 10
- Kimi K3 only
- 34
- Ling 3.0 Flash only
- 12
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 / 8
1 category rests 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- Kimi K3
- 72.0
- Supported · #8/183
- Ling 3.0 Flash
- 44.6
- Supported · #113/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 5 public rows
- Reading
- Kimi K3 leads
Agentic
Directional only- Kimi K3
- 71.9
- Supported · #4/152
- Ling 3.0 Flash
- 41.9
- Estimated · #108/152
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 12 vs 7 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Kimi K3
- 78.5
- #3/20
- Ling 3.0 Flash
- 71.2
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Kimi K3
- 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- Kimi K3
- Not ranked
- Ling 3.0 Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Kimi K3
- 89.5
- #1/48
- Ling 3.0 Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 3 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Kimi K3
- Not ranked
- Ling 3.0 Flash
- 75.6
- #60/123
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Kimi K3 | Ling 3.0 Flash | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 68.0Supported · #6/151 | 40.4Supported · #113/151 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 13 vs 6 public rows | Kimi K3 leads |
| Knowledge | 72.0Supported · #8/183 | 44.6Supported · #113/183 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 6 vs 5 public rows | Kimi K3 leads |
| Agentic | 71.9Supported · #4/152 | 41.9Estimated · #108/152 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 12 vs 7 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 78.5#3/20 | 71.2Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 73.7Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | 89.5#1/48 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 3 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 75.6#60/123 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 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
BrowseComp
Agentic
GPQA
Knowledge
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Knowledge
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Coding
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
- Kimi K3
- $0.0105
- 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
- Kimi K3
- $0.195
- 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
- Kimi K3
- $0.27
- 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.
SpecificationKimi K3Ling 3.0 Flash
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Kimi K3
1.05M
Ling 3.0 Flash
API model ID
Kimi K3
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.
Kimi K3
$0.3 per 1M cached input tokens
Ling 3.0 Flash
No comparable hosted API rate
InclusionAI Ling 3.0 Flash model cardDocumented inputs
Kimi K3
Not sourced
Ling 3.0 Flash
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Kimi K3
Not sourced
Ling 3.0 Flash
Not sourced
Provider availability
Kimi K3
Not sourced
Ling 3.0 Flash
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Kimi K3
Reasoning
Ling 3.0 Flash
Reasoning
Weight access
Kimi K3
Pending
Ling 3.0 Flash
Open Weight
License
Kimi K3
Pending
Ling 3.0 Flash
Open Weight
Release date
Kimi K3
2026-07-16
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
- Kimi K3 has the higher public score, 74.82 versus 47.51, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Kimi K3 has the larger documented window (1.05M).
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 evidence56 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Kimi K388.3%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Kimi K391.2%SourceLing 3.0 Flash72.2%SourceKimi K3 leads this result
DeepSearchQA
Kimi K395.0%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Kimi K373.2%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Kimi K384.2%SourceLing 3.0 Flash65.5%SourceKimi K3 leads this result
AutomationBench
Kimi K330.8%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
JobBench
Kimi K352.9%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
APEX-Agents
Kimi K337.6%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
SpreadsheetBench 2
Kimi K334.8%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
DECK-Bench
Kimi K373.5%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Kimi K380.9%SourceLing 3.0 Flash50.2%SourceKimi K3 leads this result
ApprenticeBench
Kimi K318%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
skillsBench
Kimi K3—Ling 3.0 Flash44.8%SourceNot directly comparable
BFCL v4
Kimi K3—Ling 3.0 Flash73.0%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
Kimi K3—Ling 3.0 Flash73.6%SourceNot directly comparable
DRACO
Kimi K3—Ling 3.0 Flash70.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
DeepSWE
Kimi K367.5%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Kimi K360.8%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE
Kimi K381.2%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
ProgramBench
Kimi K377.8%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
Kimi Code Bench v2
Kimi K372.9%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
sweMarathon
Kimi K342%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
PostTrain Bench
Kimi K336.6%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
MLS-Bench Lite
Kimi K348.3%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
Kimi K373.7%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
OpenHarmony Bench
Kimi K357.3%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Kimi K325.9%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Kimi K387.2%SourceLing 3.0 Flash84.0%SourceKimi K3 leads this result
SWE-bench (Vals)
Kimi K393.4%SourceLing 3.0 Flash65.2%SourceKimi K3 leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Kimi K3—Ling 3.0 Flash56.6%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Kimi K3—Ling 3.0 Flash72.4%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v5
Kimi K3—Ling 3.0 Flash82.8%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
Kimi K3—Ling 3.0 Flash41.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Kimi K393.5%SourceLing 3.0 Flash85.0%SourceKimi K3 leads this result
GPQA-D
Kimi K393.5%SourceLing 3.0 Flash85.0%SourceKimi K3 leads this result
HLE
Kimi K356%SourceLing 3.0 Flash22.7%SourceKimi K3 leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Kimi K343.5%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Kimi K392.9%SourceLing 3.0 Flash84.8%SourceKimi K3 leads this result
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Kimi K388.0%SourceLing 3.0 Flash82.0%SourceKimi K3 leads this result
Math
Multimodal
OfficeQA Pro
Kimi K363.3%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Kimi K381.6%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ Python
Kimi K383.4%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
CharXiv w/o tools
Kimi K384.8%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Kimi K391.3%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
MathVision
Kimi K394.3%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
MathVision w/ Python
Kimi K397.8%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
BabyVision w/ Python
Kimi K385.7%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
ZeroBench
Kimi K323.0%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
ZeroBench w/ Python
Kimi K341.0%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
WorldVQA ForceAnswer
Kimi K351.0%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
OmniDocBench
Kimi K391.1%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
PerceptionBench
Kimi K358.5%SourceLing 3.0 Flash—Not directly comparable
Instruction following
IFBench
Kimi K3—Ling 3.0 Flash74.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Kimi K3 or Ling 3.0 Flash?
Kimi K3 has the higher public score, 74.82 versus 47.51, 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, Kimi K3 or Ling 3.0 Flash?
Kimi K3 leads the public coding lane, 68 to 40.4, with Supported evidence for both models and non-overlapping 90% intervals.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Kimi K3 or Ling 3.0 Flash?
Kimi K3 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 71.9 to 41.9. Ling 3.0 Flash 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, Kimi K3 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, Kimi K3 or Ling 3.0 Flash?
Kimi K3 has the larger documented context window: 1.05M, compared with 262K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 10, 2026
Watch Kimi K3 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.