Apodex 1.1 vs Ling-3.0-flash-VL
Wins 3 of 6 areas
Coding · Reasoning · Long documents
Wins 0 of 6 areas
—
Apodex 1.1 wins more areas, narrowly.Ling-3.0-flash-VL is cheaper.
Scores updated · 14 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the six areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking20Apodex 1.12 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- CodingWriting and fixing software20Apodex 1.12 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Apodex 1.11 of 1 test
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own11Even1 each · 1 tie
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video00Even0 each · 1 tie
Images and charts and long documents rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
Ling-3.0-flash-VL costs 91% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Apodex 1.1 pulls ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+17.3points ahead
- Very hard expert questions across many subjectsHumanity's Last Exam+12.1points ahead
- Command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench 2.1+5.3points ahead
Where Ling-3.0-flash-VL pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+56.4points ahead
- Customer-service tasks in a simulated bankτ-Bench V3 · Banking+9.2points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 14 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingApodex 1.1
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Apodex 1.1 by 5.369.764.4+5.3
- SciCodeApodex 1.1 by 1.345.544.2+1.3
AgentsEven
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingLing-3.0-flash-VL by 9.225.234.4+9.2
- GDPValApodex 1.1 by 1.634.833.2+1.6
- Terminal-Bench 4.0tie00tie
ReasoningApodex 1.1
- Humanity's Last ExamApodex 1.1 by 12.134.122+12.1
- CritPtApodex 1.1 by 2.64.62+2.6
- GPQA Diamondtie86.486.2tie
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationLing-3.0-flash-VL by 56.421.678+56.4
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyApodex 1.1 by 17.331.714.3+17.3
Other results2 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- AA-OmniscienceLing-3.0-flash-VL by 17.4-21.9-4.5+17.4
- AA IntelligenceApodex 1.1 by 1.826.424.6+1.8
Questions people ask
Which is better, Apodex 1.1 or Ling-3.0-flash-VL?
Apodex 1.1 wins three of the six areas where both have results: coding, reasoning and long documents. Ling-3.0-flash-VL wins none, but costs 91% less. They are level on agents, facts and images and charts.
Which is better for coding?
Apodex 1.1. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; Ling-3.0-flash-VL wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Apodex 1.1 costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $3.00 per million output tokens; Ling-3.0-flash-VL costs $0.07 and $0.22. That makes Ling-3.0-flash-VL about 91% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 14 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 12 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 2 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.