Ling 3.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
Ling 3.1 Flash leads Nemotron 3.5 Super VL on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 41.1 to 26.5, and Ling 3.1 Flash costs 2.2x less per output token ($0.225 vs $0.50 per million). Updated October 23, 2026; 4 benchmarks have a result for both.
Ling 3.1 Flash or Nemotron 3.5 Super VL: 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 2.2x cheaper ($0.225 vs $0.50 per million).
- Shared results
- 4
- Ling 3.1 Flash only
- 0
- Nemotron 3.5 Super VL only
- 12
- Like-for-like categories
- 4 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 26.5.
Same board, both measured
Web design
Design Arena: websites
No call
Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL has a Design Arena: websites result, 1172.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL takes 1.05M tokens against 262K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Ling 3.1 Flash
Ling 3.1 Flash $0.0002, Nemotron 3.5 Super VL $0.0004 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Ling 3.1 Flash not benchmarked, Nemotron 3.5 Super VL not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Intelligence, 14.6 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- AA Intelligence Index: Ling 3.1 Flash 41.1 against Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 26.5, 14.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Ling 3.1 Flash $0.225 against Nemotron 3.5 Super VL $0.50 per million output tokens, 2.2x apart.
- Context window
- Ling 3.1 Flash takes 262K tokens, Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 1.05M.
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 | Nemotron 3.5 Super VL | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 1 | 0 | ||
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 1 | 0 | ||
| General | 1 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 4 | 0 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index10
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Nemotron 3.5 Super VL | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench coding | Not measured | 65.5% | Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured |
| SciCode | 54.1% | 47.8% | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 41 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Nemotron 3.5 Super VL | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 41.1 | 26.5 | 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 index3 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Nemotron 3.5 Super VL | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench research | Not measured | 70.9% | Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured |
| LiveBench browser | Not measured | 4.0% | Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured |
| LiveBench long agentic | Not measured | 15.8% | Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Nemotron 3.5 Super VL | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench reasoning | Not measured | 78.8% | Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 39.4% | 30.7% | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here | |||
MathNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Nemotron 3.5 Super VL | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 14 boards here | |||
KnowledgeNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Nemotron 3.5 Super VL | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 20 boards here | |||
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Nemotron 3.5 Super VL | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena: websites | Not measured | 1172 | Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured |
| Design Arena: UI components | Not measured | 1148 | Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured |
| Design Arena: game dev | Not measured | 1110 | Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured |
| Design Arena: 3D | Not measured | 1127 | Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured |
| Design Arena: all code categories | Not measured | 1154 | Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured |
| LiveBench design | Not measured | 60.7% | Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 3 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Nemotron 3.5 Super VL | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveBench data analysis | Not measured | 64.6% | Only Nemotron 3.5 Super VL measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 83.0% | 69.0% | 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 | Ling 3.1 Flash | Nemotron 3.5 Super VL | 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 | NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Super VL |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | inclusionAI | NVIDIA |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | October 2, 2026 | October 15, 2026 |
| Context window | 262K | 1.05M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.075 | $0.15 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.225 | $0.50 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 1 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Ling 3.1 Flash better than Nemotron 3.5 Super VL 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 2.2x cheaper ($0.225 vs $0.50 per million).
Which is cheaper, Ling 3.1 Flash or Nemotron 3.5 Super VL?
Ling 3.1 Flash costs $0.075 per million input tokens and $0.225 per million output tokens; Nemotron 3.5 Super VL costs $0.15 and $0.50. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Ling 3.1 Flash or Nemotron 3.5 Super VL?
Nemotron 3.5 Super VL, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks is the Ling 3.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3.5 Super VL comparison based on?
4 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 23, 2026. Ling 3.1 Flash's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Nemotron 3.5 Super VL's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.