Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-Flash
Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen3.5-Flash cost about the same per output token ($0.225 vs $0.26 per million). Updated October 23, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.225
- Coding
- 41.1
- Overall
- 50.1
- Output $/M
- $0.26
Ling 3.1 Flash or Qwen3.5-Flash: which to pick
Only Qwen3.5-Flash has a coding score, 41.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; Ling 3.1 Flash has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Ling 3.1 Flash for output tokens 1.2x cheaper ($0.225 vs $0.26 per million).
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); Qwen3.5-Flash on LMArena WebDev, LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) and SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI). 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
Only Qwen3.5-Flash has a coding score, so no call is made.
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
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
No call
Only Qwen3.5-Flash has a GPQA Diamond result, 82.8%.
Directional only
Math
AIME
No call
Only Qwen3.5-Flash has a AIME result, 92.5%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
No call
Only Qwen3.5-Flash has a MMLU Pro result, 84.1%.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen3.5-Flash
Qwen3.5-Flash takes 1M tokens against 262K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Ling 3.1 Flash
Ling 3.1 Flash $0.0002, Qwen3.5-Flash $0.0002 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
No call
Only Qwen3.5-Flash has the number, $0.40.
Directional only
At a glance
- Coding index
- Ling 3.1 Flash not benchmarked, Qwen3.5-Flash 41.1 from 2 benchmarks.
- 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 Qwen3.5-Flash $0.26 per million output tokens, 1.2x apart.
- Context window
- Ling 3.1 Flash takes 262K tokens, Qwen3.5-Flash 1M.
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 Index9 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | Not measured | 1244 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 83.3% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | Not measured | 64.4% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| SciCode | 54.1% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured |
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 265.9 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | Not measured | 1412 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | Not measured | 1416 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena WebDev: React | Not measured | 1229 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena WebDev: HTML | Not measured | 1291 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 41.1 | Not measured | Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Not measured | 143.5 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index9 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | Not measured | 82.8% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| MMMU Pro (Vals AI) | Not measured | 81.9% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 39.4% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | Not measured | 82.3% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| Chess puzzles | Not measured | 14.0% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | Not measured | 20.0% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | Not measured | 1403 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | Not measured | 1407 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | Not measured | 1409 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME | Not measured | 92.5% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Not measured | 84.4% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | Not measured | 18.2% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: math | Not measured | 1407 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | Not measured | 1413 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index12 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | Not measured | 84.1% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 84.3% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| CaseLaw (Vals AI) | Not measured | 56.0% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | Not measured | 63.6% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | Not measured | 72.2% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| MortgageTax (Vals AI) | Not measured | 67.4% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| MedCode (Vals AI) | Not measured | 33.0% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| SimpleQA Verified | Not measured | 20.3% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: science | Not measured | 1415 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | Not measured | 1407 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | Not measured | 1397 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | Not measured | 1394 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index22 boards measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.5-Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SAGE (Vals AI) | Not measured | 42.5% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| MedScribe (Vals AI) | Not measured | 70.6% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 83.0% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured |
| DTBench | Not measured | 82.9% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMCA | Not measured | 29.1% | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text | Not measured | 1397 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | Not measured | 1375 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | Not measured | 1343 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: English | Not measured | 1404 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | Not measured | 1385 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | Not measured | 1446 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: German | Not measured | 1391 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | Not measured | 1369 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | Not measured | 1344 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: French | Not measured | 1413 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | Not measured | 1399 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | Not measured | 1380 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: Polish | Not measured | 1376 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | Not measured | 1393 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | Not measured | 1392 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | Not measured | 1369 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | Not measured | 1347 | Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 26 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
Qwen3.5-Flash costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Qwen3.5-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-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | inclusionAI | Qwen |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | October 2, 2026 | February 25, 2026 |
| Context window | 262K | 1M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.075 | $0.065 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.225 | $0.26 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | 41.1 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 2 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | $0.40 |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Ling 3.1 Flash better than Qwen3.5-Flash for coding?
Only Qwen3.5-Flash has a coding score, 41.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; Ling 3.1 Flash has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Ling 3.1 Flash for output tokens 1.2x cheaper ($0.225 vs $0.26 per million).
Which is cheaper, Ling 3.1 Flash or Qwen3.5-Flash?
Ling 3.1 Flash costs $0.075 per million input tokens and $0.225 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5-Flash costs $0.065 and $0.26. Cost per solved task is known for Qwen3.5-Flash only.
Which has the bigger context window, Ling 3.1 Flash or Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash, with 1M tokens against 262K.
Has any benchmark tested both Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen3.5-Flash?
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); Qwen3.5-Flash on LMArena WebDev, LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) and SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI). Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 23, 2026.