Nano Banana 2.1 vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Ling 3.1 Flash costs 33.3x less per output token than Nano Banana 2.1 ($0.225 vs $7.50 per million). Updated October 23, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $7.50
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.225
Nano Banana 2.1 or Ling 3.1 Flash: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
No benchmark has tested both yet. Nano Banana 2.1 has results on Design Arena: images, Design Arena: graphic design and Design Arena: logos; 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
Image generation
Design Arena: images
No call
Only Nano Banana 2.1 has a Design Arena: images result, 1290.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Ling 3.1 Flash
Ling 3.1 Flash takes 262K tokens against 66K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Ling 3.1 Flash
Nano Banana 2.1 $0.0053, Ling 3.1 Flash $0.0002 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Nano Banana 2.1 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
- Nano Banana 2.1 $7.50 against Ling 3.1 Flash $0.225 per million output tokens, 33.3x apart.
- Context window
- Nano Banana 2.1 takes 66K 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 | Nano Banana 2.1 | Ling 3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SciCode | Not measured | 54.1% | Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 42 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Nano Banana 2.1 | 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 | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Nano Banana 2.1 | 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 22 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Nano Banana 2.1 | 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 47 boards here | |||
Image generationDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards measured
| Benchmark | Nano Banana 2.1 | Ling 3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: images | 1290 | Not measured | Only Nano Banana 2.1 measured |
| Design Arena: graphic design | 1333 | Not measured | Only Nano Banana 2.1 measured |
| Design Arena: logos | 1277 | Not measured | Only Nano Banana 2.1 measured |
| LMArena Text to Image | 1328 | Not measured | Only Nano Banana 2.1 measured |
| LMArena Image Edit | 1426 | Not measured | Only Nano Banana 2.1 measured |
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
Ling 3.1 Flash costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Ling 3.1 Flash costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
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.
| Specification | Google Nano Banana 2.1 | inclusionAI Ling 3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | inclusionAI | |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | October 6, 2026 | October 2, 2026 |
| Context window | 66K | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $1.50 | $0.075 |
| Output $/Mtok | $7.50 | $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 Nano Banana 2.1 better than Ling 3.1 Flash for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
Which is cheaper, Nano Banana 2.1 or Ling 3.1 Flash?
Nano Banana 2.1 costs $1.50 per million input tokens and $7.50 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, Nano Banana 2.1 or Ling 3.1 Flash?
Ling 3.1 Flash, with 262K tokens against 66K.
Has any benchmark tested both Nano Banana 2.1 and Ling 3.1 Flash?
No benchmark has tested both yet. Nano Banana 2.1 has results on Design Arena: images, Design Arena: graphic design and Design Arena: logos; 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 23, 2026.