Ling 3.0 Flash vs. Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning)
Comparison between Ling 3.0 Flash and Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) across intelligence, price, speed, context window and more.
For details relating to our methodology, see our Methodology page.
Highlights
Model Comparison
Ling 3.0 Flash | Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence Index | 38 | 26 | Ling 3.0 Flash is more intelligent than Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) |
| Price per 1M Tokens | $0.05 | $0.26 | Ling 3.0 Flash is cheaper than Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) |
| Output Speed | 410 tokens/s | 137 tokens/s | Ling 3.0 Flash is faster than Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) |
| Time to First Token | 2.02s | 1.97s | Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) responds faster than Ling 3.0 Flash |
| Context Window | 262k tokens~393 A4 pages of size 12 Arial font | 1000k tokens~1,500 A4 pages of size 12 Arial font | Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) has a larger context window than Ling 3.0 Flash |
| Release Date | August 2026 | March 2026 | Ling 3.0 Flash has a more recent release date than Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) |
| Parameters | 124B, 5.1B active at inference time | 120.6B, 12.7B active at inference time | Ling 3.0 Flash has more parameters than Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Both Ling 3.0 Flash and Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) have reasoning |
| Image Input Support | No | No | Neither Ling 3.0 Flash nor Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) have image input support |
| Open Source (Weights) | Yes | Both Ling 3.0 Flash and Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) are open source |
Intelligence
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index by Open Weights / Proprietary
Intelligence Evaluations
Agentic real-world work tasks, (Elo-500)/2000
Agentic tool use
Agentic coding & terminal use
Coding
Reasoning & knowledge
Scientific reasoning
Physics reasoning
Knowledge
1 - hallucination rate
Long context reasoning
Agentic knowledge work, Elo
Agentic SaaS workflows
Legal agentic work, criterion pass rate
Agentic business operations
Instruction following
Long-horizon agentic tasks
Kubernetes incident root-cause analysis
Visual reasoning
AA-Briefcase
AA-Briefcase Elo
AA-Omniscience
AA-Omniscience Index
Openness Index
Artificial Analysis Openness Index: Score
Intelligence Index Comparisons
Intelligence Index vs. Cost per Intelligence Index Task
Token Use
Output Tokens per Intelligence Index Task
Cost
Cost per Intelligence Index Task
Cost to Run Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index
Pricing: Cache Hit, Input, and Output
Context Window
Context Window
Speed
Measured by Output Speed (tokens per second)
Output Speed
Time per Intelligence Index Task
Latency
Measured by Time (seconds) to First Token
Latency: Time To First Answer Token
End-to-End Response Time
Seconds to output 500 tokens, calculated based on time to first token, 'thinking' time for reasoning models, and output speed
End-to-End Response Time
Model Size (Open Weights Models Only)
Model Size: Total and Active Parameters
Frequently Asked Questions
Ling 3.0 Flash is more intelligent. Ling 3.0 Flash scores 38, compared with Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) at 26 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index.
Ling 3.0 Flash is faster. Ling 3.0 Flash generates 410.1 tokens per second, compared with Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) at 137.3 tokens per second.
Ling 3.0 Flash is cheaper. Ling 3.0 Flash costs $0.05 per 1M tokens, compared with Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) at $0.26 per 1M tokens (7:2:1 cache hit/input/output ratio).
Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) has lower latency. Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) has a time to first token of 1.97s, compared with Ling 3.0 Flash at 2.02s.
Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) has a larger context window. Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B (Reasoning) supports 1.0M tokens, compared with Ling 3.0 Flash at 260k tokens.