Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Ling 3.0 Flash vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Updated September 24, 2026. Rank says Ling 3.0 Flash is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
Ling 3.0 Flash has the higher public score, 45.35 versus 19.1, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. 6 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Model B
NVIDIA
19.1/100
Estimated · Public rank #186
90% interval 9.2–29.0
- Shared results
- 6
- Ling 3.0 Flash only
- 16
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 only
- 7
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 / 8
Estimated: Ling 3.0 Flash and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4How the comparison works
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.
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedChat 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-ratesCache-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-ratesRepository 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
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
34.9Ling 3.0 Flash11.4Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Directional only · BenchAlign v5.7
Ling 3.0 Flash scores higher, but at least one score rests on Estimated evidence or a different benchmark set. Directional only, no winner.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
16 Ling 3.0 Flash only
6 Shared
7 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 only
3 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
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.
SWE MultilingualCoding
Normalized gap 35.9Ling 3.0 Flash:72.4%Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4:36.5%BrowseCompAgentic
Normalized gap 35.4Ling 3.0 Flash:72.2%Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4:36.8%SciCodeCoding
Normalized gap 9.9Ling 3.0 Flash:41.2%Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4:31.4%GPQAKnowledge
Normalized gap 9.4Ling 3.0 Flash:85.0%Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4:75.6%IFBenchInstruction following
Normalized gap 1.6Ling 3.0 Flash:74.5%Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4:72.9%
Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.7 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.
Instruction following
Like-for-like- Ling 3.0 Flash
- 72.1
- #63/124
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- 68.5
- #67/124
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Ling 3.0 Flash leads
Agentic
Directional only- Ling 3.0 Flash
- 33.0
- Supported · #61/105
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- 7.3
- Estimated · #104/105
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 7 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Directional only- Ling 3.0 Flash
- 34.9
- Supported · #74/135
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- 11.4
- Estimated · #135/135
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 6 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Ling 3.0 Flash
- 43.1
- Supported · #77/158
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- 20.7
- Estimated · #154/158
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 5 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Ling 3.0 Flash
- 72.2
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- 55.9
- Unranked · 1 rankable row
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Ling 3.0 Flash
- Not ranked
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Ling 3.0 Flash
- Not ranked
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Ling 3.0 Flash
- 72.9
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Ling 3.0 Flash | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Instruction following | 72.1#63/124 | 68.5#67/124 | Like-for-likeProvisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows | Ling 3.0 Flash leads |
| Agentic | 33.0Supported · #61/105 | 7.3Estimated · #104/105 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 7 vs 4 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 34.9Supported · #74/135 | 11.4Estimated · #135/135 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 6 vs 4 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 43.1Supported · #77/158 | 20.7Estimated · #154/158 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 5 vs 4 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 72.2Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 55.9Unranked · 1 rankable row | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 72.9Unranked · 3 rankable rows | 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 v5.7) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
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
- Ling 3.0 Flash
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Ling 3.0 Flash has no comparable published API token rate. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Ling 3.0 Flash
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Ling 3.0 Flash has no comparable published API token rate. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Ling 3.0 Flash
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Ling 3.0 Flash has no comparable published API token rate. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 has no comparable published API token rate.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationLing 3.0 FlashNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Ling 3.0 Flash
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
API model ID
Ling 3.0 Flash
Not sourced
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Ling 3.0 Flash
No comparable hosted API rate
InclusionAI Ling 3.0 Flash model cardNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
No comparable hosted API rate
NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Lightning model cardDocumented inputs
Ling 3.0 Flash
Not sourced
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Ling 3.0 Flash
Not sourced
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not sourced
Provider availability
Ling 3.0 Flash
Not sourced
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Ling 3.0 Flash
Reasoning
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Reasoning
Weight access
Ling 3.0 Flash
Open Weight
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Open Weight
License
Ling 3.0 Flash
Open Weight
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
Open Weight
Release date
Ling 3.0 Flash
2026-07-23
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
2026-08-11
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
- Ling 3.0 Flash has the higher public score, 45.35 versus 19.1, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Ling 3.0 Flash or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?
Ling 3.0 Flash has the higher public score, 45.35 versus 19.1, 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, Ling 3.0 Flash or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?
Ling 3.0 Flash scores higher for coding on the public lane, 34.9 to 11.4. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 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, Ling 3.0 Flash or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?
Ling 3.0 Flash scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 33 to 7.3. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 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, Ling 3.0 Flash or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?
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, Ling 3.0 Flash or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4?
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence29 rows
Agentic
MCP Atlas
Ling 3.0 Flash65.5%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
skillsBench
Ling 3.0 Flash44.8%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
BFCL v4
Ling 3.0 Flash73.0%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
WideResearch
Ling 3.0 Flash73.6%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Ling 3.0 Flash72.2%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP436.8%SourceLing 3.0 Flash leads this result
DRACO
Ling 3.0 Flash70.4%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Ling 3.0 Flash50.2%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Ling 3.0 Flash—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP423.5%SourceNot directly comparable
PinchBench
Ling 3.0 Flash—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP483.4%SourceNot directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Ling 3.0 Flash—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP49.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Pro
Ling 3.0 Flash56.6%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Ling 3.0 Flash72.4%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP436.5%SourceLing 3.0 Flash leads this result
LiveCodeBench v5
Ling 3.0 Flash82.8%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
SciCode
Ling 3.0 Flash41.2%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP431.4%SourceLing 3.0 Flash leads this result
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Ling 3.0 Flash84.0%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Ling 3.0 Flash65.2%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Ling 3.0 Flash—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP452.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Ling 3.0 Flash—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP423.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Ling 3.0 Flash85.0%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP475.6%SourceLing 3.0 Flash leads this result
GPQA-D
Ling 3.0 Flash85.0%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP475.6%SourceLing 3.0 Flash leads this result
HLE
Ling 3.0 Flash22.7%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Ling 3.0 Flash84.8%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Ling 3.0 Flash82.0%SourceNemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Ling 3.0 Flash—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP410.5%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Ling 3.0 Flash—Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP481.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
Math
29 public results · 6 shared
Watch Ling 3.0 Flash vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B NVFP4
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.
Last updated September 24, 2026