uttapen

Ling 3.0 Flash vs MythoMax 13B

Both sit behind the same key and the same code on uttapen — the only thing that changes is the model string, so you can run each of them against your own workload without touching anything else. On cost, Ling 3.0 Flash comes out about 1.4× cheaper.

FeatureLing 3.0 FlashMythoMax 13B
ProviderinclusionAIGryphe
Model idinclusionai/ling-3.0-flashgryphe/mythomax-l2-13b
Context262,144 tokens8,192 tokens
Max output32,768 tokens3,686 tokens
Input / 1M tokens6,093 toman17,408 toman
Output / 1M tokens18,278 toman17,408 toman
≈ one 1,000-word request32 toman45 toman
Input caching1,219 toman / 1MNo
Image inputNoNo
File inputNoNo
Tool callingYesNo
JSON outputYesYes
Reasoning modeYesNo

Which one for what?

Ling 3.0 Flash

  • Multi-step problems, maths, and tracking down a bug
  • Whole documents or a codebase in a single request
  • Agents that call your own APIs and database
  • High-volume work where cost per call decides
32 toman per 1,000 words · Model page

MythoMax 13B

  • High-volume work where cost per call decides
45 toman per 1,000 words · Model page

Run both with the same code

Swap the model value between the two ids and send the same request twice; what each answer cost comes back in the X-Uttapen-Cost-Toman header.

curl https://api.uttapen.ir/v1/chat/completions \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer sk-up-…" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "model": "inclusionai/ling-3.0-flash",
    "messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Introduce yourself in one sentence."}],
    "stream": true
  }'

model = "gryphe/mythomax-l2-13b"

More comparisons: all pairs · model rankings · full catalogue

base_url = https://api.uttapen.ir/v1