Compare AI models: Ling 3.0 Flash Fin vs Qwen3.8 Flash

Ling 3.0 Flash FininclusionAIHollow points use fallbacks · hover for details
Qwen3.8 FlashAlibabaHollow points use fallbacks · hover for details

ReasoningCodingCost efficiencyContext windowMultimodalTool use

Normalized model capability scores
Model	Reasoning	Coding	Cost efficiency	Context window	Multimodal	Tool use
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin	50/100 — Reasoning supported; no comparable benchmark	50/100 — No data; neutral placeholder	85/100	61/100	0/100	50/100 — Tool calling supported; no comparable benchmark
Qwen3.8 Flash	50/100 — Reasoning supported; no comparable benchmark	50/100 — No data; neutral placeholder	73/100	80/100	50/100	50/100 — Tool calling supported; no comparable benchmark

Overview

Author

Inclusionai

Qwen

Context length

262K

Reasoning

True

Input modalities

Text

Text, Image, Video

Output modalities

Text

Providers

Inclusionai

Qwen

Pricing

Input

$0.07/ 1M

$0.15/ 1M

Output

$0.22/ 1M

$0.47/ 1M

Cached input

$0.01/ 1M

$0.02/ 1M

MomentumLast 2 mo

Unique users

130K

153K

Completed sessions

3,515,513

1,101,531

Token share

0.26%

0.22%

Tokens

2.4T+100%

2T+100%

AUG 8OCT 2

RetentionWeek 1

Returning users

Pending

60%5.5K user-weeks

Related comparisons. Other model pairs to check.

Nearby alternativeLing 3.0 Flash Fin vs Jamba MiniLing 3.0 Flash FinJamba Mini Nearby alternativeQwen3.8 Flash vs Jamba MiniQwen3.8 FlashJamba Mini Related comparisonLing 3.0 Flash Fin vs Jamba LargeLing 3.0 Flash FinJamba Large Related comparisonQwen3.8 Flash vs Jamba LargeQwen3.8 FlashJamba Large