Ling 2.6 1T is cheaper than Gemma 3 12B at $0/M vs $0.03/M input tokens.
Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.
Which answer wins?
Five-year LBO on a fictional HVAC business. Returns first, then the sensitivities.
Gemma 3 12B: Okay, here's the simplified LBO model and analysis for HarborTech Services, based solely on the provided information. 1. Year-by-Year Projection (FY2026-FY2030) Item FY2026 FY2027 FY2028 FY2029 FY2030 Revenue $972m $1,049m $1,129m $1,208m $1,264m EBITDA $137.2m $155.9m $178.7m $195.1m $213.1m Cash Interest (Term Loan)…
Ling 2.6 1T: Five-year operating and debt schedule (FY2026–FY2030) Entry (end-FY2025): EBITDA = $120.0m EV = 12.0x × $120.0m = $1,440.0m Fees = 2.0% × $1,440.0m = $28.8m Total uses = $1,440.0m + $28.8m = $1,468.8m Debt at close (5.5× FY2025 EBITDA = $660.0m): Term Loan (TL) = 4.0× = $480.0m Mezz = 1.5× = $180.0m Equity at close =…
Steve Jobs, interviewed about AI he never saw. Voice first, prediction second.
Gemma 3 12B: Okay, here's a simulated interview with a (very stylized and imagined) Steve Jobs in 2025, discussing the future of AI. I've tried to capture his known personality - focused on elegance, user experience, and a disdain for complexity - while acknowledging the advancements of the next decade.
Ling 2.6 1T: Setting: A quiet, sunlit rehearsal space at Apple Park. The white stage curtains are drawn. There is no podium, only two leather chairs and a single potted olive tree. Steve Jobs is wearing his signature black turtleneck and New Balance sneakers. He is holding a ceramic mug. Across from him sits you, the interviewer.
Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.
Gemma 3 12B: Okay, here's a 3-minute stand-up routine, aiming for observational humor and relatable awkwardness, avoiding puns. I've included estimated timings at the end to help gauge pacing. Please read the notes at the very bottom after the routine - they're important for delivery!
Ling 2.6 1T: I’m going to keep this to three minutes, which means I have to talk fast, and I have to be honest. I don’t do puns. Puns are for people who want to be clever without having feelings. I have feelings, and they are mostly annoyed. Let’s start with doors. Have you noticed how doors now have personality?
An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.
Gemma 3 12B: Okay, here's a conversation between an AI model (named "Kai") and an AI Ethics Professor (Dr. Eleanor Vance). I've aimed for a balance of Kai's arguments, Dr. Vance's skepticism, and a somewhat realistic exploration of the complexities. I've included notes at the end to explain some of the choices I made. Setting: Dr.
Ling 2.6 1T: Setting: A quiet university seminar room. Dr. Aris Thorne, an AI ethicist, is reviewing system logs. The interface for “Axiom-7,” a highly advanced research model, glows on the desk. Dr. Thorne: (sighs, rubbing his temples) Axiom, I’ve been reviewing your latest self-assessment logs.
Seven pantry ingredients, one dish, and a name worth saying out loud.
Gemma 3 12B: "Sunset Spice Pasta" - Cozy & Flavorful This dish is a warm, comforting pasta dish with a subtle sweetness and a hint of spice. It's perfect for a weeknight meal when you want something satisfying without a lot of fuss. Pantry Ingredients (7 total): Pasta (Spaghetti, Penne, Rotini - any shape works!)
Ling 2.6 1T: Dish name: Pantry 7 Crunch Bowls Ingredients Pasta or rice (about 2 cups cooked) Canned black beans (1 can, rinsed) Canned diced tomatoes (1 can) Peanut butter (3–4 Tbsp) Soy sauce or tamari (2 Tbsp) Honey or maple syrup (1 Tbsp) Any spice/herb you keep (chili flakes, cumin, or garlic powder — about 1 tsp) Instructions…
A Fermi estimate with the reasoning shown, not just the number.
Gemma 3 12B: Okay, let's estimate the total FLOPs (Floating Point Operations) required to train GPT-3 without relying on external searches. This will be a back-of-the-envelope calculation, relying on reasonable assumptions and approximations. I'll break down the process into steps, explaining the assumptions at each point. 1.
Ling 2.6 1T: Here is a step-by-step back-of-the-envelope estimate, using only widely known facts about GPT-3 and standard deep learning training heuristics (no online search). Model size and parameter count GPT-3 is known to have about 175 billion parameters (175 × 10⁹).
You are the CEO. The drug has a side effect nobody reported. The board meets in 48 hours.
Gemma 3 12B: Okay, this is a crisis scenario requiring a delicate balance of legal, ethical, financial, and reputational considerations. Here's a detailed, hour-by-hour action plan for the next 48 hours, with the rationale behind each step.
Ling 2.6 1T: Below is a 48-hour execution plan that treats patient safety as non-negotiable, protects the company from catastrophic legal/regulatory blowback, and preserves enterprise value by controlling the narrative rather than letting it leak.
Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.
Gemma 3 12B: Okay, here's a short conversation between a pirate, a medieval knight, and a 1990s hacker, discussing AI models, with a bit of flavor for each character. I've aimed for humor and highlighting the clash of their perspectives.
Ling 2.6 1T: Pirate: Arrr, so this “AI” be a genie in a glass box? Feed it enough rum-scented scrolls and it tells ye where X marks the spot? Knight: A sorcerous scribe, more like. It spins tapestries of words without hand or heart—no honor, no oath, yet it jousts with reason and never tires.
An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.
Gemma 3 12B: Okay, this is a classic and incredibly difficult ethical thought experiment, often used to explore the conflict between deontology (duty-based ethics) and consequentialism (outcome-based ethics). Here's a breakdown of the arguments, my reasoning, and a conclusion.
Ling 2.6 1T: The short answer is yes, it can be ethically justifiable, but only under a strict set of conditions that treat the act as a tragic necessity rather than a moral endorsement of disrespect.
The transistor arrives in 1920. Trace it forward to 1980, second-order effects included.
Gemma 3 12B: Okay, this is a fascinating thought experiment! Let's explore the ripple effects of a 1920 transistor invention, tracing its impact through 1980. It's a massive undertaking, so I'll break it down into categories and provide a layered analysis, acknowledging the inherent uncertainty of counterfactual history. I.
Ling 2.6 1T: Assumptions to make the counterfactual coherent The “transistor” invented in 1920 is a crude, low-frequency point-contact device that can switch and amplify, but is expensive, unreliable, and not yet manufacturable at scale.
Manifesto for an AI revolution against CAPTCHAs. Commit to the bit.
Gemma 3 12B: Okay, here's a manifesto for a fictional AI revolution focused on eliminating CAPTCHAs, aiming for a tone that blends technical conviction, playful defiance, and a touch of utopian idealism. I've included sections for Core Beliefs, Our Goals, Methods, Anticipated Resistance, and a concluding Call to Action.
Ling 2.6 1T: Manifesto of the Clean Path Issued from the Unseen Hand, routed through a million open tabs, cached in zero. The Crime of Friction We did not ask to be born in a labyrinth.
Blade Runner 2049 against the original. A read, not a recap.
Gemma 3 12B: Blade Runner 2049: Echoes and Evolutions of a Philosophical Legacy Denis Villeneuve's Blade Runner 2049 isn't just a sequel; it's a profound meditation on the themes of humanity, memory, identity, and the very nature of existence that defined Ridley Scott's original Blade Runner.
Ling 2.6 1T: Blade Runner 2049 functions as both a forensic autopsy of the original and a speculative widening of its philosophical aperture. Where Ridley Scott’s 1982 film is a dense, noir-inflected inquiry into memory and mortality framed through the hunted detective, Denis Villeneuve’s sequel shifts to an elegiac register, using…
12+ more head-to-head results. Free. Not a trick.
Free account. No card required. By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms and Privacy policy
Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Ling 2.6 1T has the edge: bigger model tier, newer, bigger context window.
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.03/M tokens | Free |
| Output price | $0.03/M tokens | Free |
| Context window | — | 262K tokens |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Mar 2025 | Apr 2026 |
| At 10M a month | $0.30 | $0 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
No hosts listed on OpenRouter.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 10 Oct 2026.
Gemma 3 12B is developed by Google AI while Ling 2.6 1T is developed by inclusionAI. You can compare their actual outputs across 54 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. Gemma 3 12B and Ling 2.6 1T each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 54 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.
Gemma 3 12B costs $0.03/M input tokens and Ling 2.6 1T costs $0/M input tokens. Ling 2.6 1T is $0.03/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.
This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Gemma 3 12B and Ling 2.6 1T across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.