Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Ling 3.0 Flash Fin
Side-by-side API pricing and Artificial Analysis performance for Claude Haiku 4.5 (Anthropic) and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin (Inclusionai). Green cells mark the better value in each row.
Prices updated Sep 18, 2026, 4:15 PM UTC · refreshed hourly
| Claude Haiku 4.5 Anthropic | Ling 3.0 Flash Fin Inclusionai | |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.00 | $0.06 |
| Output $/1M | $5.00 | $0.18 |
| Blended $/1M (3:1) | $2.00 | $0.09 |
| RAG example (30K in / 2K out) | $0.04 | $0.00216 |
| Quality & speed | ||
| Intelligence Index | 17.6 | 23 |
| Coding Index | 43.9 | 55.6 |
| Agentic Index | 10.3 | 29.3 |
| Output speed (tok/s) | — | 163 |
| Time to first token | — | 1.57s |
| Specs | ||
| Context window | 200K | 262K |
| Input modalities | text, image, file | text |
FAQ
Which is cheaper, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Ling 3.0 Flash Fin?
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin has the lower blended API price at $0.09 per 1M tokens (3:1 input:output mix), versus $2.00 for the other model. Prices are live from OpenRouter and refresh about hourly.
Which is better for RAG workloads?
For a typical RAG request (30K input / 2K output tokens), Ling 3.0 Flash Fin costs about $0.00216 per request versus $0.04. Also compare context windows: Claude Haiku 4.5 offers 200K and Ling 3.0 Flash Fin offers 262K.
Which scores higher on Artificial Analysis benchmarks?
Ling 3.0 Flash Fin leads on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (23 vs 17.6). Check coding and agentic indices on this page for workload-specific tradeoffs.