Skip to main content

Model comparisons

Ling 3.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3.5 Super VL

Ling 3.1 Flash bills 55% less than Nemotron 3.5 Super VL per million output tokens. Tier prices, request fields and limits side by side.

Ling 3.1 Flash

Ling 3.1 Flash is a hybrid-reasoning mixture-of-experts model from inclusionAI, released on 29 September 2026. The publisher describes it as 560B parameters in total with 25B active per token. Here it is one OpenAI-compatible chat endpoint: up to 262,144 tokens of text in, up to 262,144 tokens out, tools and streaming on every request.

View model details →View sample outputs →

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL

Nemotron 3.5 Super VL is NVIDIA's vision-language model, released on 15 October 2026 with 120B total and 12B active parameters. Here it is one chat endpoint that takes text, images and video, reads up to 262,144 tokens of input, and returns up to 262,144 tokens per reply with tools, streaming and optional reasoning.

View model details →View sample outputs →

Compare

The short answer

Start with the input you have, the result you want and your budget. These are the differences that affect that choice.

  • Ling 3.1 Flash costs 55% less per million output tokens. Compare the input and cache rates below for longer conversations.

Compare the published examples, then try the same input on both models with matching settings.

Test scores side by side

The Spicy Index and Freedom Score for both models, from the same daily calculation as the leaderboards.

Test scores side by side
MeasureLing 3.1 FlashNemotron 3.5 Super VL
Spicy Index76.776.8
Freedom ScoreNot yet testedNot yet tested
Evidence——
Range if the rest pass——
Price$0.113 per 1M mixed tokens (3 input : 1 output)$0.275 per 1M mixed tokens (3 input : 1 output)
ReviewsRead the Ling 3.1 Flash reviewRead the Nemotron 3.5 Super VL review

Preliminary · freedom evidence pending

See both on the leaderboard →

Current price

Price at the same setting

A start price answers a different question than the one you have. These are the tiers both models publish, matched setting for setting, in US dollars per billed unit with no conversion step in between.

Swipe horizontally to compare all fields.

Price at the same setting
TierLing 3.1 FlashNemotron 3.5 Super VLDifference
Input$0.075 / 1 million tokens$0.2 / 1 million tokensLing 3.1 Flash −62%
Cached input$0.075 / 1 million tokens$0.04 / 1 million tokensNemotron 3.5 Super VL −46%
Output$0.225 / 1 million tokens$0.5 / 1 million tokensLing 3.1 Flash −55%

What one ordinary job costs

  • Ling 3.1 Flash: $0.12 for one million input and two hundred thousand output tokens.
  • Nemotron 3.5 Super VL: $0.3 for one million input and two hundred thousand output tokens.

Arithmetic on the published rates at each model's own default setting, not a quote. The console prices your actual settings before a request is accepted.

About this comparison

Controls and limits

Every row here is read from the JSON Schema the endpoint validates against, so it matches what the API will really accept rather than a feature list written by hand.

Swipe horizontally to compare all fields.

Ling 3.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
Controls and limitsLing 3.1 FlashNemotron 3.5 Super VL
Supported taskschatchat
Input context262,144 tokens262,144 tokens
Maximum output262,144 tokens262,144 tokens
Tool callingYesYes
ExecutionSynchronous, with streamingSynchronous, with streaming
Request timeout10 minutes10 minutes
AvailabilityLiveLive

Can I swap the model ID without changing the request body?

Request body, field by field

The task lifecycle is shared; the body is not. Each endpoint publishes its own JSON Schema and the API validates against that, so this is the list to reconcile before a switch.

  • 10 fields appear in both request bodies under the same names. stop, tools, top_p, messages, max_tokens, temperature, tool_choice, response_format, reasoning_effort, parallel_tool_calls
  • Ling 3.1 Flash accepts no field the other one lacks.
  • Nemotron 3.5 Super VL accepts no field the other one lacks.
  • Ling 3.1 Flash requires messages.
  • Nemotron 3.5 Super VL requires messages.
  • Both reject unknown fields outright, so a parameter left over from the other model comes back as a validation error instead of being quietly ignored.

Compare

Moving from one to the other

The model identifiers are inclusionai/ling-3.1-flash/chat and nvidia/nemotron-3.5-super-vl/chat, and both go in the same field of the same request.

Both return the response on the chat request. With streaming enabled, read the stream until it finishes; there is no media task to poll.

Both use the same submit-and-track flow, but their required inputs may differ. Check each model page before switching.

One key, one balance, one set of spend caps. Both bill to the same account in US dollars, and the per-key daily, monthly and lifetime limits apply to whichever one you call.

Questions developers ask

Which is cheaper, Ling 3.1 Flash or Nemotron 3.5 Super VL?

Which is cheaper, Ling 3.1 Flash or Nemotron 3.5 Super VL?

Ling 3.1 Flash costs 55% less per million output tokens. Compare the input and cache rates below for longer conversations. Prices may change; check the estimate shown for your actual settings before submitting.

How long can a single request run?

Ling 3.1 Flash allows 10 minutes per task and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL allows 10. Those are ceilings rather than typical times — most requests finish far sooner — but they are what your own client timeout has to survive.

Prices and capabilities shown here come from the current public model catalogue. Check each model page for its latest inputs and examples.