Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Claude Opus 4.1 vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Ling 3.1 Flash leads Claude Opus 4.1 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 41.1 to 22.8, and Ling 3.1 Flash costs 333.3x less per output token ($0.225 vs $75.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 1 benchmarks have a result for both.

Claude Opus 4.1Anthropic
Coding
No data
Overall
50.2
Output $/M
$75.00
0
Ling 3.1 FlashinclusionAI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.225
1
vs boards won of 1 shared

Claude Opus 4.1 or Ling 3.1 Flash: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Claude Opus 4.1 for work measured by AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.

Shared results
1
Claude Opus 4.1 only
75
Ling 3.1 Flash only
3
Like-for-like categories
1 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Claude Opus 4.1 not benchmarked, Ling 3.1 Flash not benchmarked.
Widest category
Intelligence, 18.3 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
AA Intelligence Index: Claude Opus 4.1 22.8 against Ling 3.1 Flash 41.1, 18.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Claude Opus 4.1 $75.00 against Ling 3.1 Flash $0.225 per million output tokens, 333.3x apart.
Context window
Claude Opus 4.1 takes 200K tokens, Ling 3.1 Flash 262K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryClaude Opus 4.1BarsLing 3.1 FlashTies
Intelligence01
All shared boards01
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index10 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Ling 3.1 Flash
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Ling 3.1 FlashLeader
LMArena WebDev1390Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)66.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
SciCodeNot measured54.1%Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured
Terminal-Bench38.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
WeirdML45.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Cybench42.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: coding1479Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1456Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena WebDev: HTML1399Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
SciCode4.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Ling 3.1 Flash
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Ling 3.1 FlashLeader
AA Intelligence Index22.841.1Ling 3.1 Flash
Epoch Capabilities Index144.1Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Ling 3.1 Flash
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Ling 3.1 FlashLeader
METR time horizons66.8%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
GDPval43.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
DeepResearch Bench48.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11 boards, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Ling 3.1 Flash
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Ling 3.1 FlashLeader
GPQA Diamond76.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)77.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured39.4%Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)77.3%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
SimpleBench60.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Mystery game puzzles21.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
EBR-bench7.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
VPCT35.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1442Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: expert1438Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1451Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Ling 3.1 Flash
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Ling 3.1 FlashLeader
AIME78.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)95.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MGSM (Vals AI)94.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
OTIS Mock AIME68.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 312.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
FrontierMath, tier 42.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: math1431Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1434Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index13 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Ling 3.1 Flash
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Ling 3.1 FlashLeader
MMLU Pro87.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)83.5%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)73.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)61.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MedQA (Vals AI)93.6%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MedCode (Vals AI)47.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: science1422Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1416Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1421Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1406Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
FACTS Benchmark Suite40.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
PRBench Finance35.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
PRBench Legal34.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index8 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Ling 3.1 Flash
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Ling 3.1 FlashLeader
Design Arena: websites1176Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Design Arena: UI components1162Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Design Arena: game dev1171Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Design Arena: data viz1166Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Design Arena: 3D1152Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Design Arena: all code categories1170Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Design Arena: SVG1151Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Design Arena: ASCII art1167Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index24 boards, none shared
General benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Ling 3.1 Flash
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Ling 3.1 FlashLeader
SAGE (Vals AI)31.4%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)73.9%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured83.0%Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured
DTBench80.0%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMCA37.1%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)84.7%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text1419Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1435Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1412Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: English1433Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: non-English1405Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1427Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: German1413Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1377Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1381Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: French1433Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1448Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: Russian1422Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: Polish1413Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1444Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1455Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1418Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1398Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
MultiChallenge57.2%Not measuredOnly Claude Opus 4.1 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Claude Opus 4.1 and Ling 3.1 Flash
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.1Ling 3.1 FlashLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Claude Opus 4.1$0.052Fits in one request
Ling 3.1 Flash$0.0002Fits in one request

Ling 3.1 Flash costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.1$0.975Fits in one request
Ling 3.1 Flash$0.0044Fits in one request

Ling 3.1 Flash costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Claude Opus 4.1$3.75Exceeds the context window
Ling 3.1 Flash$0.017Fits in one request

Ling 3.1 Flash costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Claude Opus 4.1 and Ling 3.1 Flash
SpecificationAnthropic Claude Opus 4.1inclusionAI Ling 3.1 Flash
MakerAnthropicinclusionAI
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedAugust 5, 2025October 2, 2026
Context window200K262K
Input $/Mtok$15.00$0.075
Output $/Mtok$75.00$0.225
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it10
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Claude Opus 4.1 better than Ling 3.1 Flash for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Claude Opus 4.1 for work measured by AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.1 or Ling 3.1 Flash?

Claude Opus 4.1 costs $15.00 per million input tokens and $75.00 per million output tokens; Ling 3.1 Flash costs $0.075 and $0.225. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Claude Opus 4.1 or Ling 3.1 Flash?

Ling 3.1 Flash, with 262K tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks is the Claude Opus 4.1 vs Ling 3.1 Flash comparison based on?

1 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Claude Opus 4.1's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Ling 3.1 Flash's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next