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: Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

The average score is effectively tied at 5.7 vs 5.7. Ling 3.0 Flash has the lower benchmark cost at $0.000 vs $0.247. Ling 3.0 Flash is faster at 3.46s vs 12.92s, with pass rates of 27.3% vs 33.3%.

Recommended modelLing 3.0 FlashIt has the best score here (5.7), while responding about 3.7x faster than Qwen3.5-122B-A10B.

Last updated at: 2026-07-24

Metric Ling 3.0 Flash Ling 3.0 Flash none Release: 2026-07-24 Free Available Qwen3.5-122B-A10B Qwen3.5-122B-A10B none Release: 2026-02-24
Score 5.7 5.7
Rank #149 #150
Reliability 9.9 10.0
Consistency 10.0 9.3
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 27.3% 33.3%
Flaky tests 0 2
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 0.000 4.182
Total Cost $0.000 $0.247
Input Price $0.000 / 1M $0.260 / 1M
Output Price $0.000 / 1M $2.080 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 124,176 241,566
Output Tokens 12,783 88,458
Reasoning Tokens 0 0
Response Time (avg) 3.46s 12.92s
Response Time (max) 17.51s 212.63s
Response Time (total) 76.06s 284.21s

Hamster playing table tennis

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

#149 Ling 3.0 Flash

none
Cost
$0.000
Time
11.6s
Tokens
2,781 tok

#150 Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

none
Cost
$0.016
Time
44.5s
Tokens
6,431 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 5.5 10.0 33.3% 0 6.39s 8,307 639 0
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 3.7 7.0 22.2% 1 2.77s 7,913 693 0

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair