GPT-5 Nano vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Ling 3.1 Flash leads GPT-5 Nano on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 41.1 to 13.0, and Ling 3.1 Flash costs 1.8x less per output token ($0.225 vs $0.40 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 3 benchmarks have a result for both.
GPT-5 Nano 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 Nano for a larger context window (400K against 262K tokens) and work measured by AA Intelligence Index or Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.
- Shared results
- 3
- GPT-5 Nano only
- 85
- Ling 3.1 Flash only
- 1
- Like-for-like categories
- 3 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Ling 3.1 Flash
Ling 3.1 Flash leads, 41.1 against 13.0.
Same board, both measured
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
No call
Only GPT-5 Nano has a GPQA Diamond result, 63.4%.
Directional only
Math
AIME
No call
Only GPT-5 Nano has a AIME result, 81.2%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
No call
Only GPT-5 Nano has a MMLU Pro result, 76.1%.
Directional only
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only GPT-5 Nano has a Design Arena: websites result, 1101.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
GPT-5 Nano
GPT-5 Nano takes 400K tokens against 262K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Ling 3.1 Flash
GPT-5 Nano $0.0003, Ling 3.1 Flash $0.0002 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
No call
Only GPT-5 Nano has the number, $0.109.
Directional only
At a glance
- Coding index
- GPT-5 Nano not benchmarked, Ling 3.1 Flash not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- General, 38.0 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): GPT-5 Nano 45.0% against Ling 3.1 Flash 83.0%, 38.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- GPT-5 Nano $0.40 against Ling 3.1 Flash $0.225 per million output tokens, 1.8x apart.
- Context window
- GPT-5 Nano takes 400K 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.
| Category | GPT-5 Nano | Bars | Ling 3.1 Flash | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 1 | ||
| General | 0 | 1 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 3 |
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index9 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5 Nano | Ling 3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 34.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 70.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 78.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 54.1% | Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 17.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| Terminal-Bench | 21.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| WeirdML | 38.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1351 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1345 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | GPT-5 Nano | Ling 3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 13.0 | 41.1 | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 139.2 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5 Nano | Ling 3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 36.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) | 51.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | GPT-5 Nano | Ling 3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 63.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| MMMU Pro (Vals AI) | 70.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 67.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 9.5% | 39.4% | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 69.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| ARC-AGI | 20.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 2.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| Chess puzzles | 22.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | 9.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| VPCT | 37.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1328 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1321 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1338 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Vision: diagrams | 1141 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Vision: homework | 1157 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 62.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index13 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5 Nano | Ling 3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME | 81.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| MATH 500 (Vals AI) | 93.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| MGSM (Vals AI) | 89.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| AA Math Index | 83.7 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 83.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 81.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | 20.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| FrontierMath, tier 4 | 2.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| ProofBench | 12.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| MATH level 5 | 95.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1317 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1326 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| MathArena | 12.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index13 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5 Nano | Ling 3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | 76.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 50.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| CaseLaw (Vals AI) | 52.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | 67.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| MortgageTax (Vals AI) | 53.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| MedQA (Vals AI) | 93.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | 30.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 78.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| SimpleQA Verified | 11.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1318 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1335 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1298 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1311 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5 Nano | Ling 3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | 1101 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | 1064 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | 1044 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| Design Arena: data viz | 1056 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | 965 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | 1084 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | GPT-5 Nano | Ling 3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SAGE (Vals AI) | 30.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | 72.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| IFBench | 67.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 45.0% | 83.0% | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| DTBench | 62.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMCA | 7.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 44.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text | 1320 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1306 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1249 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Vision | 1159 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1321 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1313 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1356 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: German | 1327 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1227 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1269 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1360 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1296 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: Polish | 1314 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1311 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1312 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1283 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1268 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Vision: English | 1170 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Vision: Chinese | 1176 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Vision: reading text | 1152 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| LMArena Vision: humor | 1110 | Not measured | Only GPT-5 Nano measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-5 Nano | Ling 3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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
Ling 3.1 Flash costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
GPT-5 Nano costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
GPT-5 Nano 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 | OpenAI GPT-5 Nano | inclusionAI Ling 3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | OpenAI | inclusionAI |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | August 7, 2025 | October 2, 2026 |
| Context window | 400K | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.05 | $0.075 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.40 | $0.225 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | $0.109 | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GPT-5 Nano 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 Nano for a larger context window (400K against 262K tokens) and work measured by AA Intelligence Index or Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5 Nano or Ling 3.1 Flash?
GPT-5 Nano costs $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Ling 3.1 Flash costs $0.075 and $0.225. Cost per solved task is known for GPT-5 Nano only.
Which has the bigger context window, GPT-5 Nano or Ling 3.1 Flash?
GPT-5 Nano, with 400K tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks is the GPT-5 Nano vs Ling 3.1 Flash comparison based on?
3 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GPT-5 Nano's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Ling 3.1 Flash's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.