Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Ling 3.1 Flash leads Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 41.1 to 39.9, and Ling 3.1 Flash costs 26.7x less per output token ($0.225 vs $6.00 per million). Updated October 23, 2026; 4 benchmarks have a result for both.
Ling 3.1 Flash or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: 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 26.7x cheaper ($0.225 vs $6.00 per million) and work measured by Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.
- Shared results
- 4
- Ling 3.1 Flash only
- 0
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B only
- 5
- 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 39.9.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B has a AA Agentic Index result, 50.1.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B takes 1.05M tokens against 262K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Ling 3.1 Flash
Ling 3.1 Flash $0.0002, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B $0.0050 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Ling 3.1 Flash not benchmarked, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Reasoning, 3.0 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run): Ling 3.1 Flash 39.4% against Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 42.4%, 3.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Ling 3.1 Flash $0.225 against Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B $6.00 per million output tokens, 26.7x apart.
- Context window
- Ling 3.1 Flash takes 262K tokens, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 1.05M.
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 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 0 | 1 tie | |
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 1 | ||
| General | 1 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 2 | 1 | 1 tie |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index00
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 71.9 | Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured |
| SciCode | 54.1% | 54.1% | Tie |
| Neither model has a result on the other 41 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 41.1 | 39.9 | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 50.1 | Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured |
| MCP Atlas | Not measured | 84.5% | Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 93.5% | Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 39.4% | 42.4% | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
| Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MathArena | Not measured | 31.6% | Only Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here | |||
KnowledgeNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | 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 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | 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 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 83.0% | 80.3% | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| Neither model has a result on the other 47 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | 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 | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | inclusionAI | Qwen |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | October 2, 2026 | August 12, 2026 |
| Context window | 262K | 1.05M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.075 | $2.00 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.225 | $6.00 |
| 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 Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 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 26.7x cheaper ($0.225 vs $6.00 per million) and work measured by Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Ling 3.1 Flash or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B?
Ling 3.1 Flash costs $0.075 per million input tokens and $0.225 per million output tokens; Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B costs $2.00 and $6.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Ling 3.1 Flash or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B?
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks is the Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B comparison based on?
4 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 23, 2026. Ling 3.1 Flash's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.