Hermes 4 405B Open vs INLing 3.1 Flash Paid
Hermes 4 405B vs Ling 3.1 Flash compared — price per token, context window, multimodality, openness and which to choose. Can the open-source model replace the paid one? Full 2026 breakdown.
Ling 3.1 Flash — full profile ›
Prices & specs refreshed from live data · olud.ai
Open-model prices = cheapest provider via OpenRouter; official maker rates may be higher.
$3 /M outputNo per-token fees if you self-host
$0.22 /M outputManaged API (no infra to run)
Hermes 4 405B vs Ling 3.1 Flash specs
| Spec | Hermes 4 405B | Ling 3.1 Flash | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maker | Nous Research | InclusionAI | – |
| Type | Open-weight | Proprietary | |
| Context window | 131K tokens | 262K tokens | INLing 3.1 Flash |
| Input price | $1/M · free self-host | $0.08/M | INLing 3.1 Flash |
| Output price | $3/M · free self-host | $0.22/M | INLing 3.1 Flash |
| Vision / multimodal | No | No | – |
| Tool / function calling | No | Yes | INLing 3.1 Flash |
| Self-hostable | Yes | No (API only) | |
| License | Open weights | Proprietary |
Price gap & when to choose each
Ling 3.1 Flash is ~14× cheaper than Hermes 4 405B on output tokens ($0.22 vs $3 per M tokens).
- You want to self-host or run on your cloud
- You prioritize data privacy & control
- You are building open or reproducible AI
- You want frontier performance through a managed API
- You need the longer 262K context window
- You want the lower output price
- You value reliability & ecosystem
- You don't want to manage infrastructure
Feature comparison
| Capability | Hermes 4 405B | Ling 3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Open weights (downloadable) | ✓ | ✗ |
| Self-hostable | ✓ | ✗ |
| Runs fully offline | ✓ | ✗ |
| Vision / multimodal | ✗ | ✗ |
| Tool / function calling | ✗ | ✓ |
| 1M+ context window | ✗ | ✗ |
Benchmarks: Hermes 4 405B vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Independent benchmark scores measured by Artificial Analysis. Higher is better (except latency).
Benchmark data by Artificial Analysis.
How Hermes 4 405B and Ling 3.1 Flash score
| Criterion | Hermes 4 405B | Ling 3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Cost-efficiency | 4.0 | 5.0 |
| Context window | 3.5 | 4.0 |
| Openness | 5.0 | 1.5 |
| Self-hosting | 5.0 | 1.0 |
| Multimodality | 2.0 | 3.5 |
Scores come from live data — output price (cost), context length, open vs closed weights (openness & self-hosting) and vision/tool support (multimodality). Raw task quality isn't scored here; it depends on your benchmark — see the verdict.
What each model is
Hermes 4 405B Open
Hermes 4 is a large-scale reasoning model built on Meta-Llama-3.1-405B and released by Nous Research. It introduces a hybrid reasoning mode, where the model can choose to deliberate internally with...
Ling 3.1 Flash Paid
Ling 3.1 Flash is a hybrid reasoning mixture-of-experts model from inclusionAI, with 25B active parameters out of 560B total.
Frequently asked questions
Is Hermes 4 405B as good as Ling 3.1 Flash?
Hermes 4 405B is open-weight and competitive on many tasks, but Ling 3.1 Flash may still lead on the hardest reasoning and agentic work. The gap keeps narrowing — benchmark both on your actual use case before deciding.
Can I run Hermes 4 405B locally?
Yes. Hermes 4 405B has open weights, so you can self-host it on your own GPUs or run it via a low-cost API. Ling 3.1 Flash is API-only and cannot be self-hosted.
Hermes 4 405B vs Ling 3.1 Flash — which should I pick in 2026?
Choose Hermes 4 405B if you want to self-host, keep your data private and skip per-token fees — it's open-weight and runs on your own hardware. Choose Ling 3.1 Flash if you want frontier capability through a managed API with zero infrastructure to run.
People also compare
Explore more open-source AI
Browse the full open-source model leaderboard, thousands of tools and live benchmarks — all in one place.
Open the leaderboard →