Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B
Ling 3.1 Flash leads Qwen3.6 35B A3B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 41.1 to 18.2, and Ling 3.1 Flash costs 4.4x less per output token ($0.225 vs $1.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 4 benchmarks have a result for both.
Ling 3.1 Flash or Qwen3.6 35B A3B: 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 4.4x cheaper ($0.225 vs $1.00 per million).
- Shared results
- 4
- Ling 3.1 Flash only
- 0
- Qwen3.6 35B A3B only
- 16
- 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 18.2.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B has a AA Agentic Index result, 13.1.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
No call
Both take 262K tokens.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Ling 3.1 Flash
Ling 3.1 Flash $0.0002, Qwen3.6 35B A3B $0.0006 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Ling 3.1 Flash not benchmarked, Qwen3.6 35B A3B not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Intelligence, 22.9 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- AA Intelligence Index: Ling 3.1 Flash 41.1 against Qwen3.6 35B A3B 18.2, 22.9 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Ling 3.1 Flash $0.225 against Qwen3.6 35B A3B $1.00 per million output tokens, 4.4x 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 | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | 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 | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 41.9 | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| SciCode | 54.1% | 36.6% | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 34.8% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Terminal-Bench | Not measured | 24.6% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| WeirdML | Not measured | 34.5% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 41.1 | 18.2 | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Not measured | 143.7 | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 13.1 | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | Not measured | 95.3% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 84.1% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 39.4% | 22.2% | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | Not measured | 84.8% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | Not measured | 22.0% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | Not measured | 86.7% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | Not measured | 20.4% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B 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 | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | 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 | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | 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 | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | Not measured | 64.4% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 83.0% | 71.7% | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| DTBench | Not measured | 73.9% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| LMCA | Not measured | 29.7% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Surface Evolver Bench | Not measured | 44.4% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 43 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | 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 | Qwen3.6 35B A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | inclusionAI | Qwen |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | October 2, 2026 | April 27, 2026 |
| Context window | 262K | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.075 | $0.10 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.225 | $1.00 |
| 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 Qwen3.6 35B A3B 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 4.4x cheaper ($0.225 vs $1.00 per million).
Which is cheaper, Ling 3.1 Flash or Qwen3.6 35B A3B?
Ling 3.1 Flash costs $0.075 per million input tokens and $0.225 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs $0.10 and $1.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Ling 3.1 Flash or Qwen3.6 35B A3B?
Neither: both take 262K tokens.
How many benchmarks is the Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B 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 Qwen3.6 35B A3B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.