DeepSeek-V4-Flash vs Ling-3.0-flash
Wins 6 of 7 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Math · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 0 of 7 areas
—
DeepSeek-V4-Flash is the stronger all-rounder.Ling-3.0-flash is cheaper.
Scores updated · 25 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 own50DeepSeek-V4-Flash5 of 5 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking30DeepSeek-V4-Flash3 of 3 tests
- MathCompetition and research-level math30DeepSeek-V4-Flash3 of 3 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software31DeepSeek-V4-Flash3 of 5 tests · 1 tie
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10DeepSeek-V4-Flash1 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10DeepSeek-V4-Flash1 of 1 test
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
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 83% 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 DeepSeek-V4-Flash pulls ahead
- Real work tasks from 44 professionsGDPVal+24.5points ahead
- Command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench 2.1+23.3points ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+22.2points ahead
Where Ling-3.0-flash pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+47.6points ahead
- Long, multi-file coding tasks in real codebasesSWE-bench Pro+4points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 25 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingDeepSeek-V4-Flash
- Terminal-Bench 2.1DeepSeek-V4-Flash by 23.378.755.4+23.3
- SciCodeDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 8.350.342+8.3
- LiveCodeBench v6DeepSeek-V4-Flash by 7.890.682.8+7.8
- SWE-bench ProLing-3.0-flash by 452.656.6+4
- SWE-bench Multilingualtie73.372.4tie
AgentsDeepSeek-V4-Flash
- GDPValDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 24.546.922.4+24.5
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 12.239.427.2+12.2
- Terminal-Bench 4.0DeepSeek-V4-Flash by 12.112.10+12.1
- MCP AtlasDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 3.56965.5+3.5
- BrowseCompDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 173.272.2+1
ReasoningDeepSeek-V4-Flash
- CritPtDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 14.916.61.7+14.9
- Humanity's Last ExamDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 14.938.623.7+14.9
- GPQA DiamondDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 5.390.885.5+5.3
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationLing-3.0-flash by 47.68.355.9+47.6
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 22.240.418.2+22.2
MathDeepSeek-V4-Flash
- HMMT Feb. 2026DeepSeek-V4-Flash by 7.894.887+7.8
- IMOAnswerBenchDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 4.788.483.7+4.7
- AIME 2026DeepSeek-V4-Flash by 2.695.893.2+2.6
Following instructionsDeepSeek-V4-Flash
- IFBenchDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 4.779.274.5+4.7
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 Agentic IndexDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 20.741.721+20.7
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 18.569.150.6+18.5
- AA IntelligenceDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 14.234.320.1+14.2
- τ³-Bench BankingLing-3.0-flash by 5.122.928+5.1
- AA-OmniscienceDeepSeek-V4-Flash by 3.6-14.3-17.9+3.6
Questions people ask
Which is better, DeepSeek-V4-Flash or Ling-3.0-flash?
DeepSeek-V4-Flash wins six of the seven areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, math, long documents and following instructions. Ling-3.0-flash wins none, but costs 83% less. They are level on facts.
Which is better for coding?
DeepSeek-V4-Flash. It wins 3 of the 5 coding tests both models report; Ling-3.0-flash wins 1, and 1 is a tie.
Which is cheaper?
DeepSeek-V4-Flash costs $0.44 per million input tokens and $1.32 per million output tokens; Ling-3.0-flash costs $0.07 and $0.22. That makes Ling-3.0-flash about 83% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 25 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 20 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.