Ling-3.0-flash vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B
Wins 7 of 7 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Math · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 0 of 7 areas
—
Ling-3.0-flash is the stronger all-rounder.
Scores updated · 26 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.
- CodingWriting and fixing software50Ling-3.0-flash5 of 5 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own40Ling-3.0-flash4 of 5 tests · 1 tie
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking30Ling-3.0-flash3 of 3 tests
- MathCompetition and research-level math20Ling-3.0-flash2 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up10Ling-3.0-flash1 of 2 tests · 1 tie
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Ling-3.0-flash1 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10Ling-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 89% 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 pulls ahead
- Finds hard-to-locate facts by browsing the webBrowseComp+23.5points ahead
- Customer-service tasks in a simulated bankτ-Bench V3 · Banking+17.9points ahead
- Command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench 2.1+10.5points ahead
Where Qwen3.6 35B A3B pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
Every test, side by side
All 26 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingLing-3.0-flash
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Ling-3.0-flash by 10.555.444.9+10.5
- SWE-bench ProLing-3.0-flash by 7.156.649.5+7.1
- SciCodeLing-3.0-flash by 5.44236.6+5.4
- SWE-bench MultilingualLing-3.0-flash by 5.272.467.2+5.2
- LiveCodeBench v6Ling-3.0-flash by 2.482.880.4+2.4
AgentsLing-3.0-flash
- BrowseCompLing-3.0-flash by 23.572.248.7+23.5
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingLing-3.0-flash by 17.927.29.3+17.9
- MCP AtlasLing-3.0-flash by 2.765.562.8+2.7
- GDPValLing-3.0-flash by 2.622.419.8+2.6
- Terminal-Bench 4.0tie00tie
ReasoningLing-3.0-flash
- Humanity's Last ExamLing-3.0-flash by 1.523.722.2+1.5
- CritPtLing-3.0-flash by 1.41.70.3+1.4
- GPQA DiamondLing-3.0-flash by 1.485.584.1+1.4
FactsLing-3.0-flash
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationLing-3.0-flash by 6.455.949.5+6.4
- AA-Omniscience · Accuracytie18.218.8tie
MathLing-3.0-flash
- IMOAnswerBenchLing-3.0-flash by 4.883.778.9+4.8
- HMMT Feb. 2026Ling-3.0-flash by 3.48783.6+3.4
- AIME 2026tie93.292.7tie
Following instructionsLing-3.0-flash
- IFBenchLing-3.0-flash by 10.174.564.4+10.1
Other results6 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.
- τ³-Bench BankingLing-3.0-flash by 17.52810.5+17.5
- WideSearchLing-3.0-flash by 13.573.660.1+13.5
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexLing-3.0-flash by 8.750.641.9+8.7
- AA Agentic IndexLing-3.0-flash by 62115+6
- AA-OmniscienceLing-3.0-flash by 4.3-17.9-22.2+4.3
- AA IntelligenceLing-3.0-flash by 1.920.118.2+1.9
Questions people ask
Which is better, Ling-3.0-flash or Qwen3.6 35B A3B?
Ling-3.0-flash wins all seven areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, facts, math, long documents and following instructions. Qwen3.6 35B A3B wins none.
Which is better for coding?
Ling-3.0-flash. It wins 5 of the 5 coding tests both models report; Qwen3.6 35B A3B wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Ling-3.0-flash costs $0.07 per million input tokens and $0.22 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs $0.38 and $2.25. That makes Ling-3.0-flash about 89% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 26 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 6 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.