Granite 4.0 Micro vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Ling 3.1 Flash leads Granite 4.0 Micro on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 41.1 to 5.1, and Granite 4.0 Micro costs 2.0x less per output token ($0.112 vs $0.225 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 3 benchmarks have a result for both.
Granite 4.0 Micro or Ling 3.1 Flash: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Granite 4.0 Micro for output tokens 2.0x cheaper ($0.112 vs $0.225 per million) and work measured by AA Intelligence Index or Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.
- Shared results
- 3
- Granite 4.0 Micro only
- 10
- 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 5.1.
Same board, both measured
Long documents
Listed context window
Ling 3.1 Flash
Ling 3.1 Flash takes 262K tokens against 131K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Granite 4.0 Micro
Granite 4.0 Micro $0.0001, Ling 3.1 Flash $0.0002 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Granite 4.0 Micro not benchmarked, Ling 3.1 Flash not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- General, 76.0 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): Granite 4.0 Micro 7.0% against Ling 3.1 Flash 83.0%, 76.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Granite 4.0 Micro $0.112 against Ling 3.1 Flash $0.225 per million output tokens, 2.0x apart.
- Context window
- Granite 4.0 Micro takes 131K 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 | Granite 4.0 Micro | 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 Index3 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Ling 3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 18.0% | Not measured | Only Granite 4.0 Micro measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 54.1% | Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 1.5% | Not measured | Only Granite 4.0 Micro measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Ling 3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 5.1 | 41.1 | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Ling 3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 12.6% | Not measured | Only Granite 4.0 Micro measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 41 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Ling 3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 33.6% | Not measured | Only Granite 4.0 Micro measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 5.0% | 39.4% | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 28.3% | Not measured | Only Granite 4.0 Micro measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Ling 3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Math Index | 6.0 | Not measured | Only Granite 4.0 Micro measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 6.0% | Not measured | Only Granite 4.0 Micro measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 2.8% | Not measured | Only Granite 4.0 Micro measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Ling 3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 44.7% | Not measured | Only Granite 4.0 Micro measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Ling 3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Ling 3.1 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 24.8% | Not measured | Only Granite 4.0 Micro measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 7.0% | 83.0% | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 46 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | 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
Granite 4.0 Micro costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Granite 4.0 Micro costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Granite 4.0 Micro 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 | IBM Granite 4.0 Micro | inclusionAI Ling 3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | IBM Granite | inclusionAI |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | October 20, 2025 | October 2, 2026 |
| Context window | 131K | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.017 | $0.075 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.112 | $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 Granite 4.0 Micro better than Ling 3.1 Flash for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Granite 4.0 Micro for output tokens 2.0x cheaper ($0.112 vs $0.225 per million) and work measured by AA Intelligence Index or Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Granite 4.0 Micro or Ling 3.1 Flash?
Granite 4.0 Micro costs $0.017 per million input tokens and $0.112 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, Granite 4.0 Micro or Ling 3.1 Flash?
Ling 3.1 Flash, with 262K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks is the Granite 4.0 Micro vs Ling 3.1 Flash comparison based on?
3 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Granite 4.0 Micro'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.