Claude Fable 5.2 vs Ling 3.0 Flash Sante

Price, context window & benchmark comparison

Anthropic

Claude Fable 5.2

Anthropic
$8.00 / $40.00
Input / Output · per 1M tokens
VS
inclusionAI

Ling 3.0 Flash Sante

inclusionAI
$0.042 / $0.12
Input / Output · per 1M tokens
Compare different models
Anthropic
inclusionAI
Verdict: Ling 3.0 Flash Sante is 256.8× cheaper than Claude Fable 5.2 on a typical 3:1 input/output mix. Claude Fable 5.2 has the larger context window (1M vs 262K).
Claude Fable 5.2Ling 3.0 Flash Sante
Input price / 1M$8.00$0.042
Output price / 1M$40.00$0.12
Blended price (3:1)$16.00$0.0623
Cached input / 1M$0.20$0.0084
Context window1M262K
Max output128K33K
Intelligence index64.6—
Coding index——
Providers5—
Best provider uptime (30m)100.0%—
Vision inputYesNo
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Released2026-11-072026-09-04
Retirement——

Cost calculator

FAQ

Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.2 or Ling 3.0 Flash Sante?

Ling 3.0 Flash Sante is 256.8× cheaper than Claude Fable 5.2 on a typical 3:1 input/output mix.

Claude Fable 5.2 vs Ling 3.0 Flash Sante: which has a bigger context window?

Claude Fable 5.2: 1,000,000 tokens. Ling 3.0 Flash Sante: 262,144 tokens.

How much would 1 million requests cost?

At 2,000 input + 500 output tokens per request: Claude Fable 5.2 ≈ $36,000, Ling 3.0 Flash Sante ≈ $145.60.

More comparisons