Ling 3.1 Flash vs Phi 4
Updated October 21, 2026. 3 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
Decision reading
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Ling 3.1 Flash has the edge where the context window is larger, 262K against 16K tokens.
- Shared results
- 3
- Ling 3.1 Flash only
- 1
- Phi 4 only
- 42
- Like-for-like categories
- 3 of 9
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.
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 5.9.
Same board, both measured
Long documents
Listed context window
Ling 3.1 Flash
Ling 3.1 Flash takes 262K tokens against 16K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Phi 4
Ling 3.1 Flash $0.0002, Phi 4 $0.0001 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Ling 3.1 Flash not benchmarked, Phi 4 not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- General, 83.0 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): Ling 3.1 Flash 83.0% against Phi 4 0.0%, 83.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Ling 3.1 Flash $0.225 against Phi 4 $0.14 per million output tokens, 1.6x apart.
- Context window
- Ling 3.1 Flash takes 262K tokens, Phi 4 16K.
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 | Phi 4 | 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 | Phi 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 23.1% | Only Phi 4 measured |
| SciCode | 54.1% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 3.8% | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | Not measured | 1231 | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | Not measured | 1228 | Only Phi 4 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Phi 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 41.1 | 5.9 | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Not measured | 130.5 | Only Phi 4 measured |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Phi 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-Bench Telecom | Not measured | 0.0% | Only Phi 4 measured |
| BALROG | Not measured | 11.6% | Only Phi 4 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Phi 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 57.5% | Only Phi 4 measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 39.4% | 3.8% | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | Not measured | 56.1% | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | Not measured | 1220 | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | Not measured | 1203 | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | Not measured | 1230 | Only Phi 4 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Phi 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Math Index | Not measured | 18.0 | Only Phi 4 measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 18.0% | Only Phi 4 measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Not measured | 13.8% | Only Phi 4 measured |
| MATH level 5 | Not measured | 64.9% | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: math | Not measured | 1246 | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | Not measured | 1254 | Only Phi 4 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Phi 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 71.4% | Only Phi 4 measured |
| MMLU | Not measured | 84.8% | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: science | Not measured | 1206 | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | Not measured | 1202 | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | Not measured | 1241 | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | Not measured | 1199 | Only Phi 4 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Phi 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Phi 4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | Not measured | 23.5% | Only Phi 4 measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 83.0% | 0.0% | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| Creative writing (Lech Mazur) | Not measured | 62.6% | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text | Not measured | 1217 | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | Not measured | 1201 | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | Not measured | 1181 | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: English | Not measured | 1231 | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | Not measured | 1197 | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | Not measured | 1212 | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: German | Not measured | 1222 | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | Not measured | 1158 | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | Not measured | 1151 | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: French | Not measured | 1224 | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | Not measured | 1234 | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | Not measured | 1209 | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | Not measured | 1206 | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | Not measured | 1217 | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | Not measured | 1198 | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | Not measured | 1162 | Only Phi 4 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Phi 4 | 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
Phi 4 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Phi 4 costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Phi 4 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 | Microsoft Phi 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | inclusionAI | Microsoft |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | October 2, 2026 | January 10, 2025 |
| Context window | 262K | 16K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.075 | $0.07 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.225 | $0.14 |
| 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 Phi 4 for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Ling 3.1 Flash has the edge where the context window is larger, 262K against 16K tokens.
Which is cheaper, Ling 3.1 Flash or Phi 4?
Ling 3.1 Flash costs $0.075 per million input tokens and $0.225 per million output tokens; Phi 4 costs $0.07 and $0.14. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Ling 3.1 Flash or Phi 4?
Ling 3.1 Flash, with 262K tokens against 16K.
How many benchmarks is the Ling 3.1 Flash vs Phi 4 comparison based on?
3 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Ling 3.1 Flash's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Phi 4's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.