Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507

Price, context window & benchmark comparison

I

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin

inclusionAI
$0.06 / $0.18
Input / Output · per 1M tokens
VS
Q

Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507

Qwen (Alibaba)
$0.23 / $2.30
Input / Output · per 1M tokens
Compare different models
I
Q
Verdict: Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 8.3× cheaper than Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 on a typical 3:1 input/output mix. Ling 3.0 Flash Fin scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (22.6 vs 12.7). Ling 3.0 Flash Fin has the larger context window (262K vs 131K).
Ling 3.0 Flash FinQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Input price / 1M$0.06$0.23
Output price / 1M$0.18$2.30
Blended price (3:1)$0.09$0.75
Cached input / 1M$0.012
Context window262K131K
Max output236K118K
Intelligence index22.612.7
Coding index55.622.1
Providers
Best provider uptime (30m)
Vision inputNoNo
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Released2026-08-272025-07-25
Retirement

Cost calculator

FAQ

Which is cheaper, Ling 3.0 Flash Fin or Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin is 8.3× cheaper than Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 on a typical 3:1 input/output mix.

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: which has a bigger context window?

Ling 3.0 Flash Fin: 262,144 tokens. Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: 131,072 tokens.

How much would 1 million requests cost?

At 2,000 input + 500 output tokens per request: Ling 3.0 Flash Fin ≈ $210.00, Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 ≈ $1,610.

More comparisons