Skip to content

GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) vs Ling 3.2 Flash (free)

vs
Ling 3.2 Flash (free)

inclusionai

40#148
Signal-by-Signal Comparison
SignalGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)DeltaLing 3.2 Flash (free)
Capabilities
67
-17
83
Benchmarks
37
+37
0
Pricing
99
-1
100
Context window size
81
-14
96
Recency
0
-100
100
Output Capacity
67
-19
87
Overall Result
1 wins
of 6
5 wins
Ling 3.2 Flash (free) wins 5 of 6 signals

Score History

Score History (39 data points)
GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Ling 3.2 Flash (free)
GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)

40.4

current score

Leader

GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)

right now

Ling 3.2 Flash (free)

40

current score

LMMarketCap.com
Interactive Price Comparison
100Kcalls/month
1,000tokens (~1,333 chars)
500tokens (~667 chars)

GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)

OpenAI

Per request$0.000450
Daily$1.50
Monthly$45.00
Annual$540.00

Ling 3.2 Flash (free)

inclusionai

Best Value
Per request$0.000000
Daily$0.00
Monthly$0.00
Annual$0.00

Ling 3.2 Flash (free) saves you $45.00/month

That's $540.00/year compared to GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.

100% cheaper
Choose Ling 3.2 Flash (free) for cost optimization

GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) pricing:
Input:$0.15/M tokens
Output:$0.60/M tokens
Ling 3.2 Flash (free) pricing:
Input:$0.00/M tokens
Output:$0.00/M tokens
Winner
GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)

OpenAI

40

Composite Score

Ling 3.2 Flash (free)

inclusionai

40

Composite Score

Signal-by-Signal Comparison
MetricGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Ling 3.2 Flash (free)Winner
Overall Score
40
40
GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)
Rank#147#148
GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)
Quality Rank#147#148
GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)
Adoption Rank#147#148
GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)
Parameters------
Context Window128K1049K
Ling 3.2 Flash (free)
Pricing$0.15/$0.60/MFree--
Signal Scores
Capabilities
67
83
Ling 3.2 Flash (free)
Benchmarks
37
--
GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)
Pricing
99
100
Ling 3.2 Flash (free)
Context window size
81
96
Ling 3.2 Flash (free)
Recency
0
100
Ling 3.2 Flash (free)
Output Capacity
67
87
Ling 3.2 Flash (free)
Benchmark Head-to-Head(2 benchmarks)
GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18): 0Ling 3.2: 0
GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)
Ling 3.2
Normalized 0-100%
LiveBench
35.5%-
BigCodeBench
46.1%-
Benchmark Interpretation

Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.

GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Entry Level

Scores 40/100 (rank #147), placing it in the top 50% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100
Ling 3.2 Flash (free)Entry Level

Scores 40/100 (rank #148), placing it in the top 49% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100

With only a 0-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.

When to Use Each Model

Choose GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) when you need:

  • Budget-friendly applications with moderate quality requirements

Choose Ling 3.2 Flash (free) when you need:

  • High-volume production workloads where API costs must be minimized
  • Processing long documents or large codebases (1049K token context)
  • Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
  • Self-hosted deployments where you need full control over the model
Cost-Performance Analysis
GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)
Input cost$0.15/M tokens
Output cost$0.60/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.019
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$11.25
Ling 3.2 Flash (free)
Input cost$0.00/M tokens
Output cost$0.00/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.000
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$0.00

Both models are priced similarly, so the decision comes down to quality and features rather than cost.

Latency & Speed
GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Faster
Speed score0/100
Ling 3.2 Flash (free)
Speed score0/100

Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.

When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.

Example Use Cases

Code generation & review

Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring

GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)

Customer support chatbot

Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. Ling 3.2 Flash (free) also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support

GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)

Long document analysis

Larger context window (1049K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass

Ling 3.2 Flash (free)

Batch data extraction

Lower output pricing ($0.00/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily

Ling 3.2 Flash (free)

Creative writing & content

Higher overall composite score (40/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content

GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)

Image understanding & OCR

Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly

GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)
Which Should You Choose?
Our recommendation:
GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)

GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) and Ling 3.2 Flash (free) are extremely close in overall performance (only 0.3999999999999986 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.

by OpenAI

  • Choose for Quality - Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
  • Choose for Reliability - Higher uptime and faster response speeds
  • Choose for Prototyping - Stronger community support and better developer experience
  • Choose for Production - Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale

by inclusionai

  • Choose for Cost - 100% lower pricing; better value at scale
Capability Comparison
CapabilityGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Ling 3.2 Flash (free)
Vision (Image Input)
Function Calling
Streaming
JSON Mode
Reasoningdiffers
Web Search
Image Output
Monthly Cost Calculator
1,000tokens (600 in / 400 out)
100requests/day (3,000/month)

GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)

OpenAI

$0.9900
estimated monthly cost

Ling 3.2 Flash (free)

inclusionai

Best Value
$0.000000
estimated monthly cost

Ling 3.2 Flash (free) saves you $0.9900/month

That's 100% cheaper than GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.

Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.

Parameters & Context
ParameterGPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18)Ling 3.2 Flash (free)
Context Window128K1.0M
Max Output Tokens16,384262,144
Open SourceNoYes
CreatedJul 18, 2024Nov 13, 2026
Last updated: 27m ago

相关对比

GPT-4o-mini (2024-07-18) vs Ling 3.2 Flash (free) (2026) | LM Market Cap