Claude Opus 4.8 vs Ling-3.0-flash-Fin
Wins 5 of 5 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Long documents
Wins 0 of 5 areas
—
Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger all-rounder.Ling-3.0-flash-Fin is cheaper.
Scores updated · 15 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the five 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 own31Claude Opus 4.83 of 4 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software20Claude Opus 4.82 of 2 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking20Claude Opus 4.82 of 2 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up10Claude Opus 4.81 of 2 tests · 1 tie
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Opus 4.81 of 1 test
Long documents rests on a single test.
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-Fin 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+30.9points ahead
- Very hard expert questions across many subjectsHumanity's Last Exam+26.1points ahead
- Command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench 2.1+22.1points ahead
Where Ling-3.0-flash-Fin pulls ahead
- Customer-service tasks in a simulated bankτ-Bench V3 · Banking+4.4points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 15 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 22.184.662.5+22.1
- SciCodeClaude Opus 4.8 by 1254.442.4+12
AgentsClaude Opus 4.8
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Claude Opus 4.8 by 21.721.70+21.7
- GDPValClaude Opus 4.8 by 17.547.830.3+17.5
- AA ApexAgentsClaude Opus 4.8 by 1239.427.4+12
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingLing-3.0-flash-Fin by 4.434.238.6+4.4
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.8
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Opus 4.8 by 26.148.722.6+26.1
- CritPtClaude Opus 4.8 by 18.320.92.6+18.3
FactsClaude Opus 4.8
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Opus 4.8 by 30.948.817.9+30.9
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationtie60.760.5tie
Other results4 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 43.428.8-14.6+43.4
- AA IntelligenceClaude Opus 4.8 by 19.241.822.6+19.2
- SpreadsheetBench 2Claude Opus 4.8 by 9.831.621.8+9.8
- Finance Agent v2Ling-3.0-flash-Fin by 5.953.959.8+5.9
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Ling-3.0-flash-Fin?
Claude Opus 4.8 wins all five areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, facts and long documents. Ling-3.0-flash-Fin wins none, but costs 99% less.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.8. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; Ling-3.0-flash-Fin 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-Fin costs $0.07 and $0.22. That makes Ling-3.0-flash-Fin about 99% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 15 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 11 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 4 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.