Ling 3.1 Flash vs o3 Pro
Ling 3.1 Flash leads o3 Pro on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 41.1 to 21.9, and Ling 3.1 Flash costs 355.6x less per output token ($0.225 vs $80.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 1 benchmarks have a result for both.
Ling 3.1 Flash or o3 Pro: 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 355.6x cheaper ($0.225 vs $80.00 per million) and a larger context window (262K against 200K tokens).
- Shared results
- 1
- Ling 3.1 Flash only
- 3
- o3 Pro only
- 11
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 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 21.9.
Same board, both measured
Long documents
Listed context window
Ling 3.1 Flash
Ling 3.1 Flash takes 262K tokens against 200K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Ling 3.1 Flash
Ling 3.1 Flash $0.0002, o3 Pro $0.060 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Ling 3.1 Flash not benchmarked, o3 Pro not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Intelligence, 19.2 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- AA Intelligence Index: Ling 3.1 Flash 41.1 against o3 Pro 21.9, 19.2 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Ling 3.1 Flash $0.225 against o3 Pro $80.00 per million output tokens, 355.6x apart.
- Context window
- Ling 3.1 Flash takes 262K tokens, o3 Pro 200K.
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 | o3 Pro | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 1 | 0 |
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index3 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | o3 Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aider polyglot | Not measured | 84.9% | Only o3 Pro measured |
| SciCode | 54.1% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured |
| WeirdML | Not measured | 58.2% | Only o3 Pro measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | o3 Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 41.1 | 21.9 | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Not measured | 147.3 | Only o3 Pro measured |
Agentic workNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | o3 Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 41 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | o3 Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 84.5% | Only o3 Pro measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 39.4% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured |
| ARC-AGI | Not measured | 59.3% | Only o3 Pro measured |
| ARC-AGI-2 | Not measured | 4.9% | Only o3 Pro measured |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | Not measured | 72.1% | Only o3 Pro measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here | |||
MathNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | o3 Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 13 boards here | |||
KnowledgeNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | o3 Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 18 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | o3 Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | o3 Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 83.0% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured |
| DTBench | Not measured | 86.9% | Only o3 Pro measured |
| LMCA | Not measured | 38.5% | Only o3 Pro measured |
| Fiction.LiveBench | Not measured | 97.2% | Only o3 Pro measured |
| Creative writing (Lech Mazur) | Not measured | 84.4% | Only o3 Pro measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 41 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | o3 Pro | 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 | OpenAI o3 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | inclusionAI | OpenAI |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | October 2, 2026 | June 10, 2025 |
| Context window | 262K | 200K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.075 | $20.00 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.225 | $80.00 |
| 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 o3 Pro 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 355.6x cheaper ($0.225 vs $80.00 per million) and a larger context window (262K against 200K tokens).
Which is cheaper, Ling 3.1 Flash or o3 Pro?
Ling 3.1 Flash costs $0.075 per million input tokens and $0.225 per million output tokens; o3 Pro costs $20.00 and $80.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Ling 3.1 Flash or o3 Pro?
Ling 3.1 Flash, with 262K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks is the Ling 3.1 Flash vs o3 Pro comparison based on?
1 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 o3 Pro's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.