Ling 3.1 Flash vs Sonar Pro
Ling 3.1 Flash leads Sonar Pro on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 41.1 to 7.6, and Ling 3.1 Flash costs 66.7x less per output token ($0.225 vs $15.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 2 benchmarks have a result for both.
Ling 3.1 Flash or Sonar 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 66.7x cheaper ($0.225 vs $15.00 per million) and a larger context window (262K against 200K tokens).
- Shared results
- 2
- Ling 3.1 Flash only
- 2
- Sonar Pro only
- 3
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 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 7.6.
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, Sonar Pro $0.011 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Ling 3.1 Flash not benchmarked, Sonar Pro not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Intelligence, 33.5 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- AA Intelligence Index: Ling 3.1 Flash 41.1 against Sonar Pro 7.6, 33.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Ling 3.1 Flash $0.225 against Sonar Pro $15.00 per million output tokens, 66.7x apart.
- Context window
- Ling 3.1 Flash takes 262K tokens, Sonar 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 | Sonar Pro | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 1 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 2 | 0 |
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Sonar Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 27.5% | Only Sonar Pro measured |
| SciCode | 54.1% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.1 Flash 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 | Sonar Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 41.1 | 7.6 | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Sonar Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 39 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Sonar Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 57.8% | Only Sonar Pro measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 39.4% | 6.6% | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here | |||
MathNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Sonar Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 13 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Sonar Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 75.5% | Only Sonar Pro measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Sonar Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Sonar Pro | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 83.0% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 45 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Sonar 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 | Perplexity Sonar Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | inclusionAI | Perplexity |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | October 2, 2026 | March 7, 2025 |
| Context window | 262K | 200K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.075 | $3.00 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.225 | $15.00 |
| 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 Sonar 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 66.7x cheaper ($0.225 vs $15.00 per million) and a larger context window (262K against 200K tokens).
Which is cheaper, Ling 3.1 Flash or Sonar Pro?
Ling 3.1 Flash costs $0.075 per million input tokens and $0.225 per million output tokens; Sonar Pro costs $3.00 and $15.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Ling 3.1 Flash or Sonar Pro?
Ling 3.1 Flash, with 262K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks is the Ling 3.1 Flash vs Sonar Pro comparison based on?
2 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 Sonar Pro's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.