Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Ling-3.0-flash-VL
Wins 0 of 6 areas
—
Wins 4 of 6 areas
Agents · Reasoning · Images and charts · Long documents
Ling-3.0-flash-VL is the stronger all-rounder.
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.
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own02Ling-3.0-flash-VL2 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking02Ling-3.0-flash-VL2 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video01Ling-3.0-flash-VL1 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts01Ling-3.0-flash-VL1 of 1 test
- CodingWriting and fixing software11Even1 each
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
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 98% 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 Ling-3.0-flash-VL pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+27.1points ahead
- Real work tasks from 44 professionsGDPVal+12.7points ahead
- Harder college exam questions with imagesMMMU-Pro+10.3points ahead
Where Claude Sonnet 4.5 pulls ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+18.5points ahead
- Code for real scientific research problemsSciCode+1.5points 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.
CodingEven
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Ling-3.0-flash-VL by 8.655.864.4+8.6
- SciCodeClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 1.545.744.2+1.5
AgentsLing-3.0-flash-VL
- GDPValLing-3.0-flash-VL by 12.720.533.2+12.7
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingLing-3.0-flash-VL by 9.924.534.4+9.9
- Terminal-Bench 4.0tie00tie
ReasoningLing-3.0-flash-VL
- Humanity's Last ExamLing-3.0-flash-VL by 4.217.822+4.2
- GPQA DiamondLing-3.0-flash-VL by 2.883.486.2+2.8
- CritPttie1.12tie
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationLing-3.0-flash-VL by 27.150.978+27.1
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Sonnet 4.5 by 18.532.914.3+18.5
Images and chartsLing-3.0-flash-VL
- MMMU-ProLing-3.0-flash-VL by 10.368.779+10.3
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 Sonnet 4.5 by 4.4-0.1-4.5+4.4
- AA IntelligenceLing-3.0-flash-VL by 3.920.724.6+3.9
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Ling-3.0-flash-VL?
Ling-3.0-flash-VL wins four of the six areas where both have results: agents, reasoning, images and charts and long documents. Claude Sonnet 4.5 wins none. They are level on coding and facts.
Which is better for coding?
Neither. They win 1 coding test each of the 2 both models report.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 costs $3.00 per million input tokens and $15.00 per million output tokens; Ling-3.0-flash-VL costs $0.07 and $0.22. That makes Ling-3.0-flash-VL about 98% 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.