Nemotron 3.5 Super VL Open vs INLing 3.1 Flash Paid
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 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.
$0.5 /M outputNo per-token fees if you self-host
$0.22 /M outputManaged API (no infra to run)
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL vs Ling 3.1 Flash specs
| Spec | Nemotron 3.5 Super VL | Ling 3.1 Flash | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maker | NVIDIA | InclusionAI | – |
| Type | Open-weight | Proprietary | |
| Context window | 1M tokens | 262K tokens | |
| Input price | $0.15/M · free self-host | $0.08/M | INLing 3.1 Flash |
| Output price | $0.5/M · free self-host | $0.22/M | INLing 3.1 Flash |
| Vision / multimodal | Yes | No | |
| Tool / function calling | Yes | Yes | = Tie |
| Self-hostable | Yes | No (API only) | |
| License | NVIDIA Open Model | Proprietary |
Price gap & when to choose each
Ling 3.1 Flash is ~2.3× cheaper than Nemotron 3.5 Super VL on output tokens ($0.22 vs $0.5 per M tokens).
- You want to self-host or run on your cloud
- You need the longer 1M context window
- You prioritize data privacy & control
- You are building open or reproducible AI
- You want frontier performance through a managed API
- You want the lower output price
- You value reliability & ecosystem
- You don't want to manage infrastructure
Feature comparison
| Capability | Nemotron 3.5 Super VL | Ling 3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Open weights (downloadable) | ✓ | ✗ |
| Self-hostable | ✓ | ✗ |
| Runs fully offline | ✓ | ✗ |
| Vision / multimodal | ✓ | ✗ |
| Tool / function calling | ✓ | ✓ |
| 1M+ context window | ✓ | ✗ |
Benchmarks: Nemotron 3.5 Super VL vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Independent benchmark scores measured by Artificial Analysis. Higher is better (except latency).
Benchmark data by Artificial Analysis.
How Nemotron 3.5 Super VL and Ling 3.1 Flash score
| Criterion | Nemotron 3.5 Super VL | Ling 3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Cost-efficiency | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| Context window | 5.0 | 4.0 |
| Openness | 5.0 | 1.5 |
| Self-hosting | 5.0 | 1.0 |
| Multimodality | 5.0 | 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
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL Open
NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Super VL is an open multimodal mixture-of-experts model from NVIDIA, with 12B active parameters out of 120B total. It takes text, images, documents, GUI screenshots, and video...
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.
Other models in these families
These variants are tracked but not compared here — one page per family keeps the comparison readable.
Frequently asked questions
Is Nemotron 3.5 Super VL as good as Ling 3.1 Flash?
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 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 Nemotron 3.5 Super VL locally?
Yes. Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 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.
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL vs Ling 3.1 Flash — which should I pick in 2026?
Choose Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 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 →