WritingmateWritingmate
Model Comparison

Gemma 3 12B vs Ling 3.1 FlashWhich Is Better in 2026?

Google: Gemma 3 12B logoGoogle•
inclusionAI

Gemma 3 12B vs Ling 3.1 Flash: which should you choose in 2026?

Gemma 3 12B (by Google) and Ling 3.1 Flash (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 3.1 Flash has no token charge in the catalog; the other model costs $0.075 per 1M tokens on a blended 3:1 input/output basis.

Ling 3.1 Flash has the larger context window (262,144 tokens vs 131,072 tokens).

Choose Gemma 3 12B if…

  • • you need image inputs

Choose Ling 3.1 Flash if…

  • • lower blended API cost matters for your workload
  • • you work with longer documents, transcripts, or codebases
  • • you need a model with explicit reasoning support

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.

Chat with both models
vs

Performance benchmarks

Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.

Gemma 3 12B and Ling 3.1 Flash benchmark results
BenchmarkGemma 3 12BLing 3.1 Flash
AutomationBench-AA

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

——
BrowseComp

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

——
OSWorld-Verified

A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state.

Mean task reward

——
SWE-Bench Verified

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

——
Terminal-Bench 2.1

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

——
AutoBench

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

——
GPQA Diamond

The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry.

Accuracy

——
Humanity's Last Exam

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
Arena (Text)

Human preference score

1342 ±10
—

Benchmark sources

Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09. Arena data last refreshed Oct 4, 2026.

Pricing, capabilities, and model facts

Gemma 3 12B and Ling 3.1 Flash model facts
FeatureGemma 3 12BLing 3.1 Flash
Context & model facts
DeveloperGoogleinclusionAI
API providerGoogleinclusionAI
Input context131,072 tokens262,144 tokens
Maximum output16,384 tokens32,768 tokens
Released——
Added to WritingmateMar 13, 2025Oct 2, 2026
LicenseNot availableNot available
Knowledge cutoff2024-08-31—
Capabilities
InputsText, ImageText
OutputsTextText
Provider endpoint accepts tool parametersYesYes
ReasoningNoYes
VisionYesNo
Image GenerationNoNo
Video GenerationNoNo
API pricing
Input (per 1M tokens)$0.05$0.00
Output (per 1M tokens)$0.15$0.00
Blended 3:1 input/output$0.075$0.00
API performance
p95 latencyNot measuredNot measured
Output throughputNot measuredNot 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 Oct 2, 2026.

Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?

Comparing Gemma 3 12B from Google with Ling 3.1 Flash from inclusionAI? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.

Subscription-plan access for Gemma 3 12B and Ling 3.1 Flash
PlanPriceGemma 3 12BLing 3.1 FlashAI ImagesAI Video
Writingmate Pro
Most popular
$20/moIncludedIncludedNano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & moreVEO 3.1, Kling 3.0
Writingmate Ultimate
Power users
$60/moIncludedIncludedNano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & moreVEO 3.1, Kling 3.0
View Plans & Pricing

Gemma 3 12B vs Ling 3.1 Flash FAQ

Which is better, Gemma 3 12B or Ling 3.1 Flash?

There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. Ling 3.1 Flash has no token charge in the catalog; the other model costs $0.075 per 1M tokens on a blended 3:1 input/output basis. Ling 3.1 Flash has the larger context window (262,144 tokens vs 131,072 tokens).

Which model is cheaper to use through an API?

Ling 3.1 Flash has no token charge in the catalog; the other model costs $0.075 per 1M tokens on a blended 3:1 input/output basis.

Which model supports more context?

Ling 3.1 Flash has the larger context window (262,144 tokens vs 131,072 tokens).

Can I switch between Gemma 3 12B and Ling 3.1 Flash?

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.