Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3 Coder Flash
Ling 3.1 Flash costs 4.3x less per output token than Qwen3 Coder Flash ($0.225 vs $0.975 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- 41.1
- Output $/M
- $0.225
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.975
Ling 3.1 Flash or Qwen3 Coder Flash: 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 4.3x cheaper ($0.225 vs $0.975 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 Coder Flash has none yet. 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
Neither has a coding score yet.
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
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen3 Coder Flash
Qwen3 Coder 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 Coder Flash $0.0007 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Ling 3.1 Flash not benchmarked, Qwen3 Coder Flash not benchmarked.
- 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 Coder Flash $0.975 per million output tokens, 4.3x apart.
- Context window
- Ling 3.1 Flash takes 262K tokens, Qwen3 Coder 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 Index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3 Coder Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 54.1% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3 Coder Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 41.1 | Not measured | Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3 Coder Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 39.4% | Not measured | Only Ling 3.1 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3 Coder Flash | 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 | |||
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 Coder Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | inclusionAI | Qwen |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | October 2, 2026 | September 17, 2025 |
| Context window | 262K | 1M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.075 | $0.195 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.225 | $0.975 |
| 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 Coder Flash 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 4.3x cheaper ($0.225 vs $0.975 per million).
Which is cheaper, Ling 3.1 Flash or Qwen3 Coder Flash?
Ling 3.1 Flash costs $0.075 per million input tokens and $0.225 per million output tokens; Qwen3 Coder Flash costs $0.195 and $0.975. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Ling 3.1 Flash or Qwen3 Coder Flash?
Qwen3 Coder Flash, with 1M tokens against 262K.
Has any benchmark tested both Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen3 Coder 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 Coder Flash has none yet. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 21, 2026.