Compare/Hy3 vs Ling-flash-2.0

Hy3vsLing-flash-2.0

Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.

Tencent

Hy3

Input
$0.14/M
Output
$0.55/M
Speed
94 tok/s
TTFT
2.75s
InclusionAI

Ling-flash-2.0

Input
$0.14/M
Output
$0.57/M
Speed
43 tok/s
TTFT
2.71s

Winner by Category

Cheaper
Hy3
Faster (tok/s)
Hy3
Lower Latency
Ling-flash-2.0
Benchmarks (2-0)
Hy3

Pricing Comparison

MetricHy3Ling-flash-2.0
Input ($/M tokens)$0.14$0.14
Output ($/M tokens)$0.55$0.57
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
Hy3$0.20
Ling-flash-2.0$0.20

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
Hy3
94 tok/s
Ling-flash-2.0
43 tok/s
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
Hy3
2.75s
Ling-flash-2.0
2.71s

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. Hy3 wins the overall benchmark matchup 2–0 across 2 overlapping categories, but raw benchmark score is only one input to the decision.

Pricing. Both models sit in the budget bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.0× the per-million-token cost, Hy3 is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Hy3 makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.

Strengths. Hy3 is strongest on Coding Index (58.8), Intelligence Index (42.2). Ling-flash-2.0 leads on Intelligence Index (9.6).

Speed. On throughput, Hy3 generates tokens at 94 tok/s versus 43 tok/s — about 55% faster. On time-to-first-token, Ling-flash-2.0 responds in 2710ms vs 2750ms, which matters most for chat-style UIs.

Provider. Tencent and InclusionAI sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Tencent tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while InclusionAI often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.

Workload cost. Workload scenarios (per million requests at 30M input + 15M output tokens): Hy3 costs $12.45 ($149/year); Ling-flash-2.0 costs $12.75 ($153/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Hy3 ≈ $1.80/run, Ling-flash-2.0 ≈ $1.84/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Hy3 ≈ $83/run, Ling-flash-2.0 ≈ $85/run. Hy3 becomes more attractive at higher volume — the absolute per-token pricing difference compounds when you ship at scale.

Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.

Head-to-head deltas

  • On throughput, Hy3 is 2.22× faster (94 tok/s vs 43 tok/s). For streaming chat or real-time agents this alone often flips the recommendation.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
42.29.6
Coding Index
58.8
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
SciCode
IFBench
TerminalBench
Hy32 wins
0 winsLing-flash-2.0

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, Hy3 or Ling-flash-2.0?

Hy3 is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $0.24/M tokens vs $0.25/M for Ling-flash-2.0.

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

Hy3 wins 2 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Ling-flash-2.0. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

Hy3 generates tokens faster at 94 tok/s vs 43 tok/s. However, Ling-flash-2.0 has lower time-to-first-token (2.71s vs 2.75s).

When should I use Hy3 vs Ling-flash-2.0?

Choose based on your priorities: Hy3 for lower cost, Hy3 for stronger benchmark performance, and Hy3 for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.