Agentic
Not comparable- Ling 3.0 Flash
- 72.2
- Pokee-Isaac 28B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Model comparison
Ling 3.0 Flash vs Pokee-Isaac 28B
Updated August 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
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 based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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
Pokee-Isaac 28B
Pokee-Isaac 28B 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
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
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: 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.
16 Ling 3.0 Flash only
1 Shared
6 Pokee-Isaac 28B only
- Shared results
- 1
- Ling 3.0 Flash only
- 16
- Pokee-Isaac 28B only
- 6
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Coding
Not comparable- Ling 3.0 Flash
- 47.1
- Pokee-Isaac 28B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Ling 3.0 Flash
- Not measured
- Pokee-Isaac 28B
- 60.7
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Ling 3.0 Flash
- 31.1
- Pokee-Isaac 28B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Ling 3.0 Flash
- 90.1
- Pokee-Isaac 28B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Ling 3.0 Flash
- Not measured
- Pokee-Isaac 28B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Ling 3.0 Flash
- Not measured
- Pokee-Isaac 28B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Ling 3.0 Flash
- 74.5
- Pokee-Isaac 28B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Ling 3.0 Flash | Pokee-Isaac 28B | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 72.2 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 47.1 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | 60.7 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 31.1 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 90.1 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 74.5 | Not measured | Not comparable1 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
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.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
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
- Pokee-Isaac 28B
- $0.00065
- Fits in one request
Ling 3.0 Flash 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
- Pokee-Isaac 28B
- $0.0105
- 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
- Ling 3.0 Flash
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
- Pokee-Isaac 28B
- $0.043
- Fits in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Pokee-Isaac 28B 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.
SpecificationLing 3.0 FlashPokee-Isaac 28B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Ling 3.0 Flash
Pokee-Isaac 28B
API model ID
Ling 3.0 Flash
Not sourced
Pokee-Isaac 28B
pokee-isaac
Pokee-Isaac 28B model pageCached-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 cardPokee-Isaac 28B
Not published
Pokee-Isaac 28B model pageDocumented inputs
Ling 3.0 Flash
Not sourced
Pokee-Isaac 28B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Ling 3.0 Flash
Not sourced
Pokee-Isaac 28B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Ling 3.0 Flash
Not sourced
Pokee-Isaac 28B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Ling 3.0 Flash
Reasoning
Pokee-Isaac 28B
Reasoning
Weight access
Ling 3.0 Flash
Open Weight
Pokee-Isaac 28B
Proprietary
License
Ling 3.0 Flash
Open Weight
Pokee-Isaac 28B
Proprietary
Release date
Ling 3.0 Flash
2026-07-23
Pokee-Isaac 28B
2026-08-03
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
- Pokee-Isaac 28B has the larger documented window (10M).
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 evidence23 rows
Agentic
MCP Atlas
Ling 3.0 Flash65.5%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
skillsBench
Ling 3.0 Flash44.8%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
BFCL v4
Ling 3.0 Flash73.0%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B70.9%SourceLing 3.0 Flash leads this result
WideResearch
Ling 3.0 Flash73.6%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Ling 3.0 Flash72.2%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
DRACO
Ling 3.0 Flash70.4%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Ling 3.0 Flash—Pokee-Isaac 28B65.1%SourceNot directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Ling 3.0 Flash—Pokee-Isaac 28B66.2%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP-Atlas claim coverage
Ling 3.0 Flash—Pokee-Isaac 28B74.6%SourceNot directly comparable
PinchBench
Ling 3.0 Flash—Pokee-Isaac 28B95.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Pro
Ling 3.0 Flash56.6%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Ling 3.0 Flash72.4%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v5
Ling 3.0 Flash82.8%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
SciCode
Ling 3.0 Flash41.2%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Ling 3.0 Flash—Pokee-Isaac 28B65.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
MRCRv2
Ling 3.0 Flash—Pokee-Isaac 28B60.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
Math
Instruction following
IFBench
Ling 3.0 Flash74.5%SourcePokee-Isaac 28B—Not directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Ling 3.0 Flash or Pokee-Isaac 28B?
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, Ling 3.0 Flash or Pokee-Isaac 28B?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Ling 3.0 Flash or Pokee-Isaac 28B?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Ling 3.0 Flash or Pokee-Isaac 28B?
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 Pokee-Isaac 28B?
Pokee-Isaac 28B has the larger documented context window: 10M, compared with 262K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 4, 2026
Watch Ling 3.0 Flash vs Pokee-Isaac 28B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.