Ling 3.1 Flash vs Mistral Nemo
Mistral Nemo costs 1.5x less per output token than Ling 3.1 Flash ($0.15 vs $0.225 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.225
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.15
Ling 3.1 Flash or Mistral Nemo: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Ling 3.1 Flash for a larger context window (262K against 131K tokens).
No benchmark has tested both yet. Ling 3.1 Flash has results on SciCode, AA Intelligence Index and Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run); Mistral Nemo on Epoch Capabilities Index, MMLU and DTBench. 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only Ling 3.1 Flash has a AA Intelligence Index result, 41.1.
Directional only
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
Ling 3.1 Flash
Ling 3.1 Flash $0.0002, Mistral Nemo $0.0002 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Ling 3.1 Flash not benchmarked, Mistral Nemo 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
- Ling 3.1 Flash $0.225 against Mistral Nemo $0.15 per million output tokens, 1.5x apart.
- Context window
- Ling 3.1 Flash takes 262K tokens, Mistral Nemo 131K.
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
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Mistral Nemo | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 54.1% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Mistral Nemo | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 41.1 | Not measured | Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Not measured | 118.7 | Only Mistral Nemo measured |
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Mistral Nemo | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 39.4% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Mistral Nemo | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU | Not measured | 65.3% | Only Mistral Nemo measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Mistral Nemo | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 83.0% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured |
| DTBench | Not measured | 48.6% | Only Mistral Nemo measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 44 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 | Mistral Nemo |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | inclusionAI | Mistral AI |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | October 2, 2026 | July 19, 2024 |
| Context window | 262K | 131K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.075 | $0.15 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.225 | $0.15 |
| 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 Mistral Nemo for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Ling 3.1 Flash for a larger context window (262K against 131K tokens).
Which is cheaper, Ling 3.1 Flash or Mistral Nemo?
Ling 3.1 Flash costs $0.075 per million input tokens and $0.225 per million output tokens; Mistral Nemo costs $0.15 and $0.15. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Ling 3.1 Flash or Mistral Nemo?
Ling 3.1 Flash, with 262K tokens against 131K.
Has any benchmark tested both Ling 3.1 Flash and Mistral Nemo?
No benchmark has tested both yet. Ling 3.1 Flash has results on SciCode, AA Intelligence Index and Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run); Mistral Nemo on Epoch Capabilities Index, MMLU and DTBench. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 22, 2026.