Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-9B
Ling 3.1 Flash leads Qwen3.5-9B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 41.1 to 13.3, and Qwen3.5-9B costs 1.5x less per output token ($0.15 vs $0.225 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 4 benchmarks have a result for both.
Ling 3.1 Flash or Qwen3.5-9B: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
- Shared results
- 4
- Ling 3.1 Flash only
- 0
- Qwen3.5-9B 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 13.3.
Same board, both measured
Long documents
Listed context window
No call
Both take 262K tokens.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.5-9B
Ling 3.1 Flash $0.0002, Qwen3.5-9B $0.0002 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Ling 3.1 Flash not benchmarked, Qwen3.5-9B not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Intelligence, 27.8 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- AA Intelligence Index: Ling 3.1 Flash 41.1 against Qwen3.5-9B 13.3, 27.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Ling 3.1 Flash $0.225 against Qwen3.5-9B $0.15 per million output tokens, 1.5x apart.
- Context window
- Both take 262K tokens.
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 | Qwen3.5-9B | 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 | Qwen3.5-9B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 23.5 | Only Qwen3.5-9B measured |
| SciCode | 54.1% | 29.5% | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 24.2% | Only Qwen3.5-9B measured |
| Terminal-Bench | Not measured | 9.2% | Only Qwen3.5-9B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.5-9B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 41.1 | 13.3 | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Not measured | 139.3 | Only Qwen3.5-9B measured |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.5-9B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-Bench Telecom | Not measured | 86.8% | Only Qwen3.5-9B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 41 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.5-9B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 80.6% | Only Qwen3.5-9B measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 39.4% | 14.9% | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | Not measured | 79.0% | Only Qwen3.5-9B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.5-9B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | Not measured | 61.7% | Only Qwen3.5-9B measured |
| MathArena | Not measured | 13.0% | Only Qwen3.5-9B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
KnowledgeNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.5-9B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 20 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.5-9B | 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 | Qwen3.5-9B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | Not measured | 66.7% | Only Qwen3.5-9B measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 83.0% | 70.0% | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| DTBench | Not measured | 71.2% | Only Qwen3.5-9B measured |
| LMCA | Not measured | 24.5% | Only Qwen3.5-9B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 44 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.5-9B | 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
Qwen3.5-9B 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 | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | inclusionAI | Qwen |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | October 2, 2026 | March 10, 2026 |
| Context window | 262K | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.075 | $0.10 |
| 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 Qwen3.5-9B for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
Which is cheaper, Ling 3.1 Flash or Qwen3.5-9B?
Ling 3.1 Flash costs $0.075 per million input tokens and $0.225 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5-9B costs $0.10 and $0.15. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Ling 3.1 Flash or Qwen3.5-9B?
Neither: both take 262K tokens.
How many benchmarks is the Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-9B comparison based on?
4 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Ling 3.1 Flash's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.5-9B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.