Command R7B (12-2024) vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Command R7B (12-2024) costs 1.5x less per output token than Ling 3.1 Flash ($0.15 vs $0.225 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.15
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.225
Command R7B (12-2024) or Ling 3.1 Flash: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Command R7B (12-2024) for output tokens 1.5x cheaper ($0.15 vs $0.225 per million).
No benchmark has tested both yet. Command R7B (12-2024) has results on Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL); Ling 3.1 Flash on SciCode, AA Intelligence Index and Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run). Compare them on price and context instead.
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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only Ling 3.1 Flash has a AA Intelligence Index result, 41.1.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Ling 3.1 Flash
Ling 3.1 Flash takes 262K tokens against 128K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Command R7B (12-2024)
Command R7B (12-2024) $0.0001, Ling 3.1 Flash $0.0002 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Command R7B (12-2024) not benchmarked, Ling 3.1 Flash not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
- Widest single gap
- None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
- Output price
- Command R7B (12-2024) $0.15 against Ling 3.1 Flash $0.225 per million output tokens, 1.5x apart.
- Context window
- Command R7B (12-2024) takes 128K tokens, Ling 3.1 Flash 262K.
Benchmark by benchmark
Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Command R7B (12-2024) | Ling 3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SciCode | Not measured | 54.1% | Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Command R7B (12-2024) | Ling 3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | Not measured | 41.1 | Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Command R7B (12-2024) | Ling 3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) | 32.1% | Not measured | Only Command R7B (12-2024) measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Command R7B (12-2024) | Ling 3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 39.4% | Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Command R7B (12-2024) | Ling 3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | Not measured | 83.0% | Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 45 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
Command R7B (12-2024) costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Command R7B (12-2024) costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Command R7B (12-2024) 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.
| Specification | Cohere Command R7B (12-2024) | inclusionAI Ling 3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Cohere | inclusionAI |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | December 14, 2024 | October 2, 2026 |
| Context window | 128K | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.0375 | $0.075 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.15 | $0.225 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Command R7B (12-2024) better than Ling 3.1 Flash for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Command R7B (12-2024) for output tokens 1.5x cheaper ($0.15 vs $0.225 per million).
Which is cheaper, Command R7B (12-2024) or Ling 3.1 Flash?
Command R7B (12-2024) costs $0.0375 per million input tokens and $0.15 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, Command R7B (12-2024) or Ling 3.1 Flash?
Ling 3.1 Flash, with 262K tokens against 128K.
Has any benchmark tested both Command R7B (12-2024) and Ling 3.1 Flash?
No benchmark has tested both yet. Command R7B (12-2024) has results on Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL); Ling 3.1 Flash on SciCode, AA Intelligence Index and Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run). Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 22, 2026.