Ling 3.1 Flash is $0.005 cheaper per 1M input tokens (6.3% lower; 1.07x difference).
API cost decision in 10 seconds
NewTernary Bonsai 2 9B vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Pick Ternary Bonsai 2 9B for lower cost; pick Ling 3.1 Flash only if the larger context window matters more.
Page updated:
Data confirmed:
Prices normalized to USD per 1M tokens
Sample workload: 1M input + 500K output
Budget verdict
Pick Ternary Bonsai 2 9B for lower cost; pick Ling 3.1 Flash only if the larger context window matters more.
On the standard 1M input plus 500K output workload, Ternary Bonsai 2 9B is estimated at $0.15 vs $0.19 for Ling 3.1 Flash, saving $0.04 (22.7% lower).
Cost-first pickTernary Bonsai 2 9B
Context-first pickLing 3.1 Flash
Sample savings$0.0422.7%
10x traffic gap$0.42
Ling 3.1 Flash has more context, but Ternary Bonsai 2 9B saves $0.04 on the standard workload. At 10x that traffic, the same price gap is about $0.42. Use the calculator below to replace the sample workload with your own token volume.
Cost sensitivity
Workload Sensitivity
Ternary Bonsai 2 9B stays cheaper across input-heavy, balanced, and output-heavy sample workloads.
| Workload shape | Token mix | Better pick | Ternary Bonsai 2 9B | Ling 3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Input-heavy / RAG | 5M input + 500K output | Ternary Bonsai 2 9B | $0.47 | $0.49 |
| Balanced workload | 1M input + 1M output | Ternary Bonsai 2 9B | $0.21 | $0.3 |
| Output-heavy chatbot | 1M input + 5M output | Ternary Bonsai 2 9B | $0.73 | $1.2 |
Ternary Bonsai 2 9B is $0.1 cheaper per 1M output tokens (42.2% lower; 1.73x difference).
Ling 3.1 Flash has 737.86K more context (3.81x larger).
Ternary Bonsai 2 9B is $0.04 cheaper on the standard workload (22.7% lower).
Estimate your workload cost
Your Workload Cost
This estimate uses normalized public API pricing per 1M tokens. It is a planning aid, not a billing quote. Verify provider pricing, limits, and terms before production use.
Quick Decision
Ling 3.1 Flash has the lower input price; Ternary Bonsai 2 9B has the lower output price; Ling 3.1 Flash offers the larger context window. For the 1M input plus 500K output sample, Ternary Bonsai 2 9B is cheaper for the standard workload.
For a 1M input token plus 500K output token workload, the estimated API cost is $0.15 for Ternary Bonsai 2 9B and $0.19 for Ling 3.1 Flash.
Choose Ternary Bonsai 2 9B when you care most about lower output-token price.
Choose Ling 3.1 Flash when you care most about lower input-token price, and larger context window.
- On the standard 1M input plus 500K output workload, Ternary Bonsai 2 9B is estimated at $0.15 vs $0.19 for Ling 3.1 Flash, saving $0.04 (22.7% lower).
- Ternary Bonsai 2 9B is $0.04 cheaper on the standard workload (22.7% lower).
- Ling 3.1 Flash is $0.005 cheaper per 1M input tokens (6.3% lower; 1.07x difference).
- Ternary Bonsai 2 9B is $0.1 cheaper per 1M output tokens (42.2% lower; 1.73x difference).
- Ling 3.1 Flash has 737.86K more context (3.81x larger).
| Feature | NewTernary Bonsai 2 9B (PrismML) | Ling 3.1 Flash (inclusionAI) |
|---|---|---|
| Input Price prompt tokens per 1M | $0.08 | $0.075 |
| Completion Price per 1M tokens | $0.13 | $0.225 |
| Sample Workload Cost 1M input + 500K output | $0.15 | $0.19 |
| Context Window | 262.14K | 1M |
| Release Date |
Use-Case Decision Matrix
| Use case | Better pick | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Budget-constrained production | Ternary Bonsai 2 9B | On the standard 1M input plus 500K output workload, Ternary Bonsai 2 9B is estimated at $0.15 vs $0.19 for Ling 3.1 Flash, saving $0.04 (22.7% lower). |
| High-volume input processing | Ling 3.1 Flash | Lower prompt-token price matters most when prompts, retrieved passages, or documents dominate the bill. |
| Long responses and chatbots | Ternary Bonsai 2 9B | Lower output-token price matters most when assistants generate many completion tokens. |
| RAG or long-document work | Ling 3.1 Flash | A larger context window leaves more room for retrieved passages, conversation history, or source files. |
Related Alternatives
- Ling 3.0 Flash VL (free) can replace Ling 3.1 Flash when lower sample workload cost matters most: $0.
- Ling 3.0 Flash Sante (free) can replace Ling 3.1 Flash when lower sample workload cost matters most: $0.
- Ling 3.0 Flash Fin (free) can replace Ling 3.1 Flash when lower sample workload cost matters most: $0.
- Ling 3.0 Tiny (free) can replace Ling 3.1 Flash when lower sample workload cost matters most: $0.
- GPT-6 Luna Pro (batch) offers 1.05M context with $0.17 sample workload cost.
- GPT-6 Luna (batch) offers 1.05M context with $0.17 sample workload cost.
- Owl Alpha offers 1.05M context with $0 sample workload cost.
- GLM 5.3 Flash offers 1.05M context with $0.08 sample workload cost.
- Kimi K3.1 Pro · MoonshotAI · #1
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 · DeepSeek · #2
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash · DeepSeek · #3
- GLM 5.3 Flash · Z.ai · #4
Cheaper alternatives
Review low-cost models sorted by a standard 1M input plus 500K output workload.
Open cheapest modelsLarger context alternatives
Find models with larger context windows for RAG, long documents, and codebase review.
Open largest context modelsProvider catalogs
Compare models within provider hubs before choosing a final API vendor.
Open provider hubsPrismML catalog
Review all tracked PrismML models before deciding whether this matchup is the right shortlist.
Open PrismML modelsinclusionAI catalog
Check other inclusionAI models with comparable pricing, context, or release timing.
Open inclusionAI modelsTernary Bonsai 2 9B is PrismML’s compact, open-weight language model for conversational AI, reasoning, and tool use. Built on Qwen3.5, it uses ternary weights packed into 2 bits for efficient...
Ling 3.1 Flash is a hybrid reasoning mixture-of-experts model from inclusionAI, with 25B active parameters out of 560B total.