Claude Opus 4.8 is the stronger all-rounder.Ling-3.0-flash-VL is cheaper.
Scores updated · 13 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.
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking30Claude Opus 4.83 of 3 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own20Claude Opus 4.82 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- CodingWriting and fixing software20Claude Opus 4.82 of 2 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts00Even0 each · 1 tie
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-VL 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+34.4points ahead
- Very hard expert questions across many subjectsHumanity's Last Exam+26.7points ahead
- Command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench 2.1+20.2points ahead
Where Ling-3.0-flash-VL pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+17.3points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 13 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 20.284.664.4+20.2
- SciCodeClaude Opus 4.8 by 10.254.444.2+10.2
AgentsClaude Opus 4.8
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Claude Opus 4.8 by 21.721.70+21.7
- GDPValClaude Opus 4.8 by 14.647.833.2+14.6
- τ-Bench V3 · Bankingtie34.234.4tie
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.8
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Opus 4.8 by 26.748.722+26.7
- CritPtClaude Opus 4.8 by 18.920.92+18.9
- GPQA DiamondClaude Opus 4.8 by 5.89286.2+5.8
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Opus 4.8 by 34.448.814.3+34.4
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationLing-3.0-flash-VL by 17.360.778+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-OmniscienceClaude Opus 4.8 by 33.328.8-4.5+33.3
- AA IntelligenceClaude Opus 4.8 by 17.241.824.6+17.2
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Ling-3.0-flash-VL?
Claude Opus 4.8 wins three of the five areas where both have results: coding, agents and reasoning. Ling-3.0-flash-VL wins none, but costs 99% less. They are level on facts and long documents.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Opus 4.8. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; Ling-3.0-flash-VL 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-VL costs $0.07 and $0.22. That makes Ling-3.0-flash-VL about 99% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 13 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 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.