Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Ling 3.1 Flash leads Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 41.1 to 9.5, and Ling 3.1 Flash costs 4.4x less per output token ($0.225 vs $1.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 1 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace Ling 3.1 Flash Replace Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking
Ling 3.1 FlashinclusionAI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.225
1
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B ThinkingQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.00
0
vs boards won of 1 shared

Ling 3.1 Flash or Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking: 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).

Model ALing 3.1 FlashinclusionAINot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved taskModel BQwen3 VL 30B A3B ThinkingQwenNot benchmarkedNo coding benchmarkNo cost per solved task
Shared results
1
Ling 3.1 Flash only
3
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking only
0
Like-for-like categories
1 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.

At a glance

Coding index
Ling 3.1 Flash not benchmarked, Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking not benchmarked.
Widest category
Intelligence, 31.6 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
AA Intelligence Index: Ling 3.1 Flash 41.1 against Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking 9.5, 31.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Ling 3.1 Flash $0.225 against Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking $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.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryLing 3.1 FlashBarsQwen3 VL 30B A3B ThinkingTies
Intelligence10
All shared boards10
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index1 board, none shared
Coding benchmarks for Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking
BenchmarkLing 3.1 FlashQwen3 VL 30B A3B ThinkingLeader
SciCode54.1%Not measuredOnly Ling 3.1 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 42 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking
BenchmarkLing 3.1 FlashQwen3 VL 30B A3B ThinkingLeader
AA Intelligence Index41.19.5Ling 3.1 Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here
Agentic workNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking
BenchmarkLing 3.1 FlashQwen3 VL 30B A3B ThinkingLeader
Neither model has a result on 42 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Reasoning benchmarks for Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking
BenchmarkLing 3.1 FlashQwen3 VL 30B A3B ThinkingLeader
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)39.4%Not measuredOnly Ling 3.1 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 22 boards here
MathNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking
BenchmarkLing 3.1 FlashQwen3 VL 30B A3B ThinkingLeader
Neither model has a result on 14 boards here
KnowledgeNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking
BenchmarkLing 3.1 FlashQwen3 VL 30B A3B ThinkingLeader
Neither model has a result on 20 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking
BenchmarkLing 3.1 FlashQwen3 VL 30B A3B ThinkingLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
General benchmarks for Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking
BenchmarkLing 3.1 FlashQwen3 VL 30B A3B ThinkingLeader
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)83.0%Not measuredOnly Ling 3.1 Flash measured
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
Image generation benchmarks for Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking
BenchmarkLing 3.1 FlashQwen3 VL 30B A3B ThinkingLeader
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$0.0002Fits in one request
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking$0.0008Fits in one request

Ling 3.1 Flash costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Ling 3.1 Flash$0.0044Fits in one request
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking$0.018Fits in one request

Ling 3.1 Flash costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Ling 3.1 Flash$0.017Fits in one request
Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking$0.068Fits in one request

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.

Specifications of Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking
SpecificationinclusionAI Ling 3.1 FlashQwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking
MakerinclusionAIQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedOctober 2, 2026October 6, 2025
Context window262K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.075$0.29
Output $/Mtok$0.225$1.00
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Ling 3.1 Flash better than Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking 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 VL 30B A3B Thinking?

Ling 3.1 Flash costs $0.075 per million input tokens and $0.225 per million output tokens; Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking costs $0.29 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 VL 30B A3B Thinking?

Neither: both take 262K tokens.

How many benchmarks is the Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking comparison based on?

1 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 VL 30B A3B Thinking's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next