Navigate
AI BENCHY
Advertise here

Ling 3.0 Tiny — medium vs none

none leads on average score with 4.0 vs 3.8. Benchmark cost is effectively tied at $0.000 vs $0.000. none is faster at 13.42s vs 68.74s, with pass rates of 24.2% vs 9.1%.

Last updated at: 2026-08-07

Rank
#244
Total Output Tokens
1,021,580
Response Time (avg)
68.74s
Total Cost
$0.000
Rank
#237
Total Output Tokens
110,077
Response Time (avg)
13.42s
Total Cost
$0.000
Recommended model none

It has the best score here (4.0), while responding about 5.1x faster than Ling 3.0 Tiny (medium).

Detailed comparison

Metric Ling 3.0 Tiny Ling 3.0 Tiny medium Release: 2026-08-07 Free Available Ling 3.0 Tiny Ling 3.0 Tiny none Release: 2026-08-07 Free Available
Score 3.8 4.0
Rank #244 #237
Reliability 9.7 9.8
Consistency 8.9 10.0
Benchmark coverage 22/22 tests · 66/66 attempts 22/22 tests · 66/66 attempts
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 24.2% 9.1%
Flaky tests 3 0
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 0.000 0.000
Total Cost $0.000 $0.000
Input Price $0.000 / 1M $0.000 / 1M
Output Price $0.000 / 1M $0.000 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 104,078 184,762
Output Tokens 153,908 110,077
Reasoning Tokens 867,672 0
Response Time (avg) 68.74s 13.42s
Response Time (max) 262.20s 240.61s
Response Time (total) 1512.22s 295.29s

Model generation showcase

Hamster playing table tennis

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

#244 Ling 3.0 Tiny

medium
Invalid SVG
Cost
$0.000
Time
177.4s
Tokens
6,873 tok

#237 Ling 3.0 Tiny

none
Invalid SVG
Cost
$0.000
Time
334.1s
Tokens
32,913 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 Tiny 2.9 10.0 0.0% 0 211.99s 7,948 70,838 206,006
Ling 3.0 Tiny 4.2 10.0 0.0% 0 1.19s 8,307 798 0

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair