Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-5.2 Pro vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Ling 3.1 Flash costs 746.7x less per output token than GPT-5.2 Pro ($0.225 vs $168.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.

GPT-5.2 ProOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$168.00
Ling 3.1 FlashinclusionAI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.225
vs $168.00 vs $0.225 per 1M output tokens. Ling 3.1 Flash is 746.7x cheaper.

GPT-5.2 Pro or Ling 3.1 Flash: which to pick

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

Pick GPT-5.2 Pro for a larger context window (400K against 262K tokens).

No benchmark has tested both yet. GPT-5.2 Pro has results on Epoch Capabilities Index, ARC-AGI and ARC-AGI-2; 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.

At a glance

Coding index
GPT-5.2 Pro 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
GPT-5.2 Pro $168.00 against Ling 3.1 Flash $0.225 per million output tokens, 746.7x apart.
Context window
GPT-5.2 Pro takes 400K 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
Coding benchmarks for GPT-5.2 Pro and Ling 3.1 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.2 ProLing 3.1 FlashLeader
SciCodeNot measured54.1%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 index2 boards measured
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-5.2 Pro and Ling 3.1 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.2 ProLing 3.1 FlashLeader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured41.1Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured
Epoch Capabilities Index156.3Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 Pro measured
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards measured
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-5.2 Pro and Ling 3.1 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.2 ProLing 3.1 FlashLeader
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured39.4%Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured
ARC-AGI90.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 Pro measured
ARC-AGI-254.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 Pro measured
SimpleBench57.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 Pro measured
Chess puzzles60.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
Math benchmarks for GPT-5.2 Pro and Ling 3.1 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.2 ProLing 3.1 FlashLeader
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 374.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 Pro measured
FrontierMath, tier 446.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-5.2 Pro and Ling 3.1 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.2 ProLing 3.1 FlashLeader
PRBench Finance46.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 Pro measured
PRBench Legal45.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.2 Pro measured
Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
General benchmarks for GPT-5.2 Pro and Ling 3.1 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.2 ProLing 3.1 FlashLeader
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured83.0%Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 47 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

GPT-5.2 Pro$0.105Fits 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

GPT-5.2 Pro$1.55Fits 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

GPT-5.2 Pro$5.88Fits in one request
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 GPT-5.2 Pro and Ling 3.1 Flash
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-5.2 ProinclusionAI Ling 3.1 Flash
MakerOpenAIinclusionAI
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedDecember 10, 2025October 2, 2026
Context window400K262K
Input $/Mtok$21.00$0.075
Output $/Mtok$168.00$0.225
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-5.2 Pro better than Ling 3.1 Flash for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GPT-5.2 Pro for a larger context window (400K against 262K tokens).

Which is cheaper, GPT-5.2 Pro or Ling 3.1 Flash?

GPT-5.2 Pro costs $21.00 per million input tokens and $168.00 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, GPT-5.2 Pro or Ling 3.1 Flash?

GPT-5.2 Pro, with 400K tokens against 262K.

Has any benchmark tested both GPT-5.2 Pro and Ling 3.1 Flash?

No benchmark has tested both yet. GPT-5.2 Pro has results on Epoch Capabilities Index, ARC-AGI and ARC-AGI-2; 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.

Compare next