R1 vs Ling 3.0 Flash VL: which should you choose in 2026?
R1 (by DeepSeek) and Ling 3.0 Flash VL (by inclusionAI) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is about 12.8× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.09 vs $1.15 per 1M tokens).
Ling 3.0 Flash VL has the larger context window (131,072 tokens vs 64,000 tokens).
Choose R1 if…
- • your own prompt tests favor its output; shared comparable evidence does not identify a unique advantage
Choose Ling 3.0 Flash VL if…
- • lower blended API cost matters for your workload
- • you work with longer documents, transcripts, or codebases
- • you need image inputs
The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.
Performance benchmarks
Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.
| Benchmark | R1 | Ling 3.0 Flash VL |
|---|---|---|
A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework. Guardrail-aware score | — | — |
A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing. Accuracy | — | — |
A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state. Mean task reward | — | — |
A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests. Resolved | — | — |
Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol. Mean task success | — | — |
A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench. Weighted peer-assessment score | — | — |
The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Accuracy | — | — |
A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged. Accuracy | — | — |
| Arena preference scores | ||
Human preference score | 1398 ±5 | — |
Benchmark sources
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09. Arena data last refreshed Sep 12, 2026.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | R1 | Ling 3.0 Flash VL |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | DeepSeek | inclusionAI |
| API provider | DeepSeek | inclusionAI |
| Input context | 64,000 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Maximum output | 16,000 tokens | 32,768 tokens |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Jan 20, 2025 | Sep 10, 2026 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2024-07-31 | — |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text | Text, Image, Video |
| Outputs | Text | Text |
| Provider endpoint accepts tool parameters | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Vision | No | Yes |
| Image Generation | No | No |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API pricing | ||
| Input (per 1M tokens) | $0.70 | $0.06 |
| Output (per 1M tokens) | $2.50 | $0.18 |
| Blended 3:1 input/output | $1.15 | $0.09 |
| API performance | ||
| p95 latency | Not measured | Not measured |
| Output throughput | Not measured | Not measured |
| Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table. | ||
Data sources
- Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)
Catalog data last updated Sep 10, 2026.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing R1 from DeepSeek with Ling 3.0 Flash VL from inclusionAI? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | R1 | Ling 3.0 Flash VL | AI Images | AI Video |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writingmate Pro Most popular | $20/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
Writingmate Ultimate Power users | $60/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | Sora 2, VEO 3.1 |
R1 vs Ling 3.0 Flash VL FAQ
Which is better, R1 or Ling 3.0 Flash VL?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. Ling 3.0 Flash VL is about 12.8× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.09 vs $1.15 per 1M tokens). Ling 3.0 Flash VL has the larger context window (131,072 tokens vs 64,000 tokens).
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL is about 12.8× cheaper on a blended 3:1 input/output basis ($0.09 vs $1.15 per 1M tokens).
Which model supports more context?
Ling 3.0 Flash VL has the larger context window (131,072 tokens vs 64,000 tokens).
Can I switch between R1 and Ling 3.0 Flash VL?
Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.
Related comparisons
More R1 comparisons
GPT-5
OpenAI
GPT-5 is OpenAI’s most advanced model, offering major improvements in reasoning, code quality, and user experience.
Claude Sonnet 4
Anthropic
Claude Sonnet 4 significantly enhances the capabilities of its predecessor, Sonnet 3.7, excelling in both coding and reasoning tasks with improved precision and controllability.
o3
OpenAI
o3 is a well-rounded and powerful model across domains.
o4 Mini
OpenAI
OpenAI o4-mini is a compact reasoning model in the o-series, optimized for fast, cost-efficient performance while retaining strong multimodal and agentic capabilities.
Fugu Ultra v2
Sakana AI
Fugu Ultra v2 is the higher-performance model in Sakana AI's Fugu family.
Fugu Max
Sakana AI
Fugu Max is the cost-performance model in Sakana AI's Fugu family.
More Ling 3.0 Flash VL comparisons
Qwen3.8 Max (0902)
Qwen
Qwen3.8 Max 0902 is an updated snapshot of Qwen3.8 Max from Alibaba's Qwen team.
Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor
Meta
Muse Spark 1.3 Contributor is the cost-efficient contributor tier of Meta’s multimodal reasoning model for experimentation, learning, and early-stage agentic, multi-agent, and coding workflows.
Muse Spark 1.3
Meta
Muse Spark 1.3 is a multimodal reasoning model from Meta for long-running agentic, multi-agent, and coding workflows.
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Gemini 3.8 Flash is Google's most intelligent Flash model with significant gains from 3.7 Flash across software engineering, agentic tasks, and multi-step reasoning.
Qwen3.8 Flash
Qwen
Qwen3.8 Flash is a multimodal reasoning model from Alibaba.
GLM 5.3 Flash
Z.AI
GLM-5.3-Flash is a native multimodal model from Z.ai.