Navigate
AI BENCHY
AD
Track all your projects in one dashboard. Get 📊stats, 🔥heatmaps and 👀recordings in one self-hosted dashboard.
uxwizz.com

Ling 3.0 Flash vs Qwen: Qwen3.5-Flash

Ling 3.0 Flash (high) leads on average score with 6.4 vs 6.2. Ling 3.0 Flash (high) has the lower benchmark cost at $0.000 vs $0.139. Ling 3.0 Flash (high) is faster at 13.32s vs 84.82s, with pass rates of 63.6% vs 69.7%.

Recommended modelLing 3.0 Flash (high)It has the best score here (6.4), while responding about 6.4x faster than Qwen3.5-Flash (medium).

Last updated at: 2026-07-24

Metric Ling 3.0 Flash Ling 3.0 Flash high Release: 2026-07-24 Free Available Qwen3.5-Flash Qwen3.5-Flash medium Release: 2026-02-24
Score 6.4 6.2
Rank #114 #121
Reliability 9.4 10.0
Consistency 8.6 7.8
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 63.6% 69.7%
Flaky tests 4 6
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 0.000 1.361
Total Cost $0.000 $0.139
Input Price $0.000 / 1M $0.065 / 1M
Output Price $0.000 / 1M $0.260 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 132,224 118,499
Output Tokens 92,393 12,284
Reasoning Tokens 211,994 490,610
Response Time (avg) 13.32s 84.82s
Response Time (max) 75.27s 515.38s
Response Time (total) 292.99s 1781.22s

Hamster playing table tennis

Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.

#114 Ling 3.0 Flash

high
Cost
$0.000
Time
30.7s
Tokens
10,576 tok

#121 Qwen3.5-Flash

medium
Cost
$0.002
Time
25.8s
Tokens
4,294 tok

Top Models by Score

Score vs Total Cost

Response Time (avg)

Score vs Response Time (avg)

Total Output Tokens

Score vs Total Output Tokens

Category Breakdown

Coding Score Consistency Attempt pass rate Flaky tests Tests Correct Response Time (avg) Input Tokens Output Tokens Reasoning Tokens
Ling 3.0 Flash 6.7 5.0 66.7% 2 14.85s 8,298 15,602 32,152
Qwen3.5-Flash 3.7 7.2 22.2% 1 58.87s 6,685 302 90,081

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair