Model Comparison

Ling 3.0 Flash
vs. Claude Fable 5.2 (Max, Default Fallback)

Comparing 2 AI models · 0 benchmarks · InclusionAI, Anthropic

Recommended Pick

Ling 3.0 Flash6 metric wins

Strongest on: Input price, Output price, Blended price

Lowest Price

Ling 3.0 Flash

$0.07/1M input price

Differences That Matter

Price gap

Ling 3.0 Flash is 106.7x cheaper on input tokens than Claude Fable 5.2 (Max, Default Fallback).

Speed gap

Ling 3.0 Flash generates about 1.2x as many tokens per second as Claude Fable 5.2 (Max, Default Fallback).

Top-pick rationale

Ling 3.0 Flash wins 6 measurable categories, including Input price, Output price, Blended price, Throughput.

Live compare

Response Face-Off

Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.

10 comparisons left in 24h

Ling 3.0 Flash

InclusionAI

Waiting

TTFT

—

Time

—

tok/s

—

Tokens

—

Cost

—

Waiting

Claude Fable 5.2 (Max, Default Fallback)

Anthropic

Waiting

TTFT

—

Time

—

tok/s

—

Tokens

—

Cost

—

Waiting

Which answer was more useful?

Secure AI Chat made in Europe

Chat with EU-Hosted Models like Deepseek, Qwen & Kimi: open-weight, transparent, no lock-in.

Chat for free

EU-hosted open models, one API

Servers in Germany & Finland. Operated by a German company under the GDPR, DPA available, ISO 27001-certified data centres.

Get API access

Full Comparison

Metric	Top Pick In Ling 3.0 Flash InclusionAI	An Claude Fable 5.2 (Max, Default Fallback) Anthropic
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input Cost	$0.07/1M	$8.00/1M
Output Cost	$0.22/1M	$40.00/1M
Blended (3:1)	$0.11/1M	$16.00/1M
Specifications
Organization	InclusionAI	Anthropic
Release Date	Aug 4, 2026	Nov 9, 2026
Performance & Speed
Throughput	113.9 tok/s	91.5 tok/s
TTFT	1780ms	239630ms
Latency	19350ms	239630ms
Composite Indices
Value Score	—	100.0
Reasoning Score	—	64.6
Intelligence	—	64.6