Claude Opus 4.8 vs Ling-3.0-flash
Wins 6 of 7 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Math · Long documents
Wins 1 of 7 areas
Following instructions
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger all-rounder.Ling-3.0-flash is cheaper and better at following instructions.
Scores updated · 24 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the seven 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.
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own50Claude Opus 4.85 of 5 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software40Claude Opus 4.84 of 4 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking30Claude Opus 4.83 of 3 tests
- MathCompetition and research-level math20Claude Opus 4.82 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up20Claude Opus 4.82 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Opus 4.81 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked01Ling-3.0-flash1 of 1 test
Long documents and following instructions 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 costs 99% 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 Claude Opus 4.8 pulls ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+30.6points ahead
- Command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench 2.1+29.2points ahead
- Real work tasks from 44 professionsGDPVal+25.4points ahead
Where Ling-3.0-flash pulls ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+12.3points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 24 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingClaude Opus 4.8
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Claude Opus 4.8 by 29.284.655.4+29.2
- SWE-bench ProClaude Opus 4.8 by 12.669.256.6+12.6
- SciCodeClaude Opus 4.8 by 12.454.442+12.4
- SWE-bench MultilingualClaude Opus 4.8 by 1284.472.4+12
AgentsClaude Opus 4.8
- GDPValClaude Opus 4.8 by 25.447.822.4+25.4
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Claude Opus 4.8 by 21.721.70+21.7
- MCP AtlasClaude Opus 4.8 by 16.782.265.5+16.7
- BrowseCompClaude Opus 4.8 by 12.184.372.2+12.1
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingClaude Opus 4.8 by 734.227.2+7
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.8
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Opus 4.8 by 2548.723.7+25
- CritPtClaude Opus 4.8 by 19.220.91.7+19.2
- GPQA DiamondClaude Opus 4.8 by 6.59285.5+6.5
FactsClaude Opus 4.8
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Opus 4.8 by 30.648.818.2+30.6
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude Opus 4.8 by 4.860.755.9+4.8
MathClaude Opus 4.8
- HMMT Feb. 2026Claude Opus 4.8 by 8.595.587+8.5
- AIME 2026Claude Opus 4.8 by 6.810093.2+6.8
- IMOAnswerBenchtie83.583.7tie
Following instructionsLing-3.0-flash
- IFBenchLing-3.0-flash by 12.362.274.5+12.3
Other results5 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-OmniscienceClaude Opus 4.8 by 46.728.8-17.9+46.7
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Opus 4.8 by 23.774.350.6+23.7
- AA IntelligenceClaude Opus 4.8 by 21.741.820.1+21.7
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Opus 4.8 by 21.642.621+21.6
- WideSearchtie72.973.6tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Ling-3.0-flash?
Claude Opus 4.8 wins six of the seven areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, facts, math and long documents. Ling-3.0-flash wins following instructions, and costs 99% less.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.8. It wins 4 of the 4 coding tests both models report; Ling-3.0-flash wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Opus 4.8 costs $5.00 per million input tokens and $25.00 per million output tokens; Ling-3.0-flash costs $0.07 and $0.22. That makes Ling-3.0-flash about 99% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 24 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 19 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 5 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.