Ling 3.1 Flash vs Kimi K2 0905
Ling 3.1 Flash leads Kimi K2 0905 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 41.1 to 15.3, and Ling 3.1 Flash costs 11.1x less per output token ($0.225 vs $2.50 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 3 benchmarks have a result for both.
Ling 3.1 Flash or Kimi K2 0905: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Ling 3.1 Flash for output tokens 11.1x cheaper ($0.225 vs $2.50 per million).
- Shared results
- 3
- Ling 3.1 Flash only
- 1
- Kimi K2 0905 only
- 14
- 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 15.3.
Same board, both measured
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only Kimi K2 0905 has a Design Arena: websites result, 1088.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
No call
Both take 262K tokens.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Ling 3.1 Flash
Ling 3.1 Flash $0.0002, Kimi K2 0905 $0.0019 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Ling 3.1 Flash not benchmarked, Kimi K2 0905 not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Reasoning, 33.0 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run): Ling 3.1 Flash 39.4% against Kimi K2 0905 6.4%, 33.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Ling 3.1 Flash $0.225 against Kimi K2 0905 $2.50 per million output tokens, 11.1x apart.
- Context window
- Both take 262K tokens.
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 | Ling 3.1 Flash | Bars | Kimi K2 0905 | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 1 | 0 | ||
| General | 1 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 3 | 0 |
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index5 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Kimi K2 0905 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 61.0% | Only Kimi K2 0905 measured |
| SciCode | 54.1% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 23.5% | Only Kimi K2 0905 measured |
| WeirdML | Not measured | 36.7% | Only Kimi K2 0905 measured |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 267.1 | Only Kimi K2 0905 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Kimi K2 0905 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 41.1 | 15.3 | 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 | Ling 3.1 Flash | Kimi K2 0905 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-Bench Telecom | Not measured | 73.4% | Only Kimi K2 0905 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Kimi K2 0905 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 76.7% | Only Kimi K2 0905 measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 39.4% | 6.4% | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | Not measured | 52.2% | Only Kimi K2 0905 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Kimi K2 0905 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Math Index | Not measured | 57.3 | Only Kimi K2 0905 measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 57.3% | Only Kimi K2 0905 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 | Ling 3.1 Flash | Kimi K2 0905 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 81.9% | Only Kimi K2 0905 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Kimi K2 0905 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | Not measured | 1088 | Only Kimi K2 0905 measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | Not measured | 1098 | Only Kimi K2 0905 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Kimi K2 0905 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | Not measured | 41.7% | Only Kimi K2 0905 measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 83.0% | 53.0% | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| Fiction.LiveBench | Not measured | 66.7% | Only Kimi K2 0905 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 43 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Kimi K2 0905 | 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
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 | inclusionAI Ling 3.1 Flash | MoonshotAI Kimi K2 0905 |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | inclusionAI | Moonshot AI |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | October 2, 2026 | September 4, 2025 |
| Context window | 262K | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.075 | $0.60 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.225 | $2.50 |
| 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 Ling 3.1 Flash better than Kimi K2 0905 for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Ling 3.1 Flash for output tokens 11.1x cheaper ($0.225 vs $2.50 per million).
Which is cheaper, Ling 3.1 Flash or Kimi K2 0905?
Ling 3.1 Flash costs $0.075 per million input tokens and $0.225 per million output tokens; Kimi K2 0905 costs $0.60 and $2.50. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Ling 3.1 Flash or Kimi K2 0905?
Neither: both take 262K tokens.
How many benchmarks is the Ling 3.1 Flash vs Kimi K2 0905 comparison based on?
3 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Ling 3.1 Flash's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Kimi K2 0905's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.