Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Ling 3.1 Flash is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limited
Ling 3.0 Flash vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Updated September 30, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. 2 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 2
- Ling 3.0 Flash only
- 20
- Ling 3.1 Flash only
- 6
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: Ling 3.0 FlashHow the comparison works
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.
Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Ling 3.1 Flash is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limitedLong documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documentedChat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-ratesCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-ratesRepository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
34.2Ling 3.0 Flash—Ling 3.1 Flash
Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.7
The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
20 Ling 3.0 Flash only
2 Shared
6 Ling 3.1 Flash only
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.7 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Agentic
Not comparable- Ling 3.0 Flash
- 32.7
- Supported · #75/119
- Ling 3.1 Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 7 vs 5 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- Ling 3.0 Flash
- 34.2
- Supported · #83/144
- Ling 3.1 Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 6 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Ling 3.0 Flash
- 72.5
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Ling 3.1 Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Ling 3.0 Flash
- Not ranked
- Ling 3.1 Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Ling 3.0 Flash
- 42.4
- Supported · #88/170
- Ling 3.1 Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 5 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Ling 3.0 Flash
- Not ranked
- Ling 3.1 Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Ling 3.0 Flash
- 72.1
- #63/124
- Ling 3.1 Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Ling 3.0 Flash
- 72.9
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Ling 3.1 Flash
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Ling 3.0 Flash | Ling 3.1 Flash | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 32.7Supported · #75/119 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 7 vs 5 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | 34.2Supported · #83/144 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 6 vs 2 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 72.5Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | 42.4Supported · #88/170 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 5 vs 1 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | 72.1#63/124 | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 1 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 72.9Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.7) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Ling 3.0 Flash
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Ling 3.1 Flash
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Ling 3.0 Flash has no comparable published API token rate. Ling 3.1 Flash has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Ling 3.0 Flash
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Ling 3.1 Flash
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Ling 3.0 Flash has no comparable published API token rate. Ling 3.1 Flash has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Ling 3.0 Flash
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
- Ling 3.1 Flash
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Ling 3.0 Flash has no comparable published API token rate. Ling 3.1 Flash has no comparable published API token rate.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationLing 3.0 FlashLing 3.1 Flash
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Ling 3.0 Flash
Ling 3.1 Flash
API model ID
Ling 3.0 Flash
Not sourced
Ling 3.1 Flash
inclusionai/ling-3.1-flash
Vercel AI Gateway availabilityCached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Ling 3.0 Flash
No comparable hosted API rate
InclusionAI Ling 3.0 Flash model cardLing 3.1 Flash
No comparable hosted API rate
Vercel AI Gateway availabilityDocumented inputs
Ling 3.0 Flash
Not sourced
Ling 3.1 Flash
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Ling 3.0 Flash
Not sourced
Ling 3.1 Flash
Not sourced
Provider availability
Ling 3.0 Flash
Not sourced
Ling 3.1 Flash
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Ling 3.0 Flash
Reasoning
Ling 3.1 Flash
Reasoning
Weight access
Ling 3.0 Flash
Open Weight
Ling 3.1 Flash
Proprietary
License
Ling 3.0 Flash
Open Weight
Ling 3.1 Flash
Proprietary
Release date
Ling 3.0 Flash
2026-07-23
Ling 3.1 Flash
2026-09-29
If you are considering the documented upgrade path
- Deployment change
- Both entries list InclusionAI as the provider. Confirm endpoint, model ID, limits, and feature support before switching.
- Quality signal
- At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 262K.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Ling 3.0 Flash or Ling 3.1 Flash?
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Ling 3.0 Flash or Ling 3.1 Flash?
Ling 3.1 Flash is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Ling 3.0 Flash or Ling 3.1 Flash?
Ling 3.1 Flash is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, Ling 3.0 Flash or Ling 3.1 Flash?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Ling 3.0 Flash or Ling 3.1 Flash?
Both models list the same context window, 262K.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence28 rows
Agentic
MCP Atlas
Ling 3.0 Flash65.5%SourceLing 3.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
skillsBench
Ling 3.0 Flash44.8%SourceLing 3.1 Flash68.7%SourceLing 3.1 Flash leads this result
BFCL v4
Ling 3.0 Flash73.0%SourceLing 3.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
WideResearch
Ling 3.0 Flash73.6%SourceLing 3.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Ling 3.0 Flash72.2%SourceLing 3.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
DRACO
Ling 3.0 Flash70.4%SourceLing 3.1 Flash85.5%SourceLing 3.1 Flash leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Ling 3.0 Flash50.2%SourceLing 3.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
AutomationBench
Ling 3.0 Flash—Ling 3.1 Flash52.5%SourceNot directly comparable
CyberGym
Ling 3.0 Flash—Ling 3.1 Flash87.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Finance Agent v2
Ling 3.0 Flash—Ling 3.1 Flash57.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Pro
Ling 3.0 Flash56.6%SourceLing 3.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Ling 3.0 Flash72.4%SourceLing 3.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v5
Ling 3.0 Flash82.8%SourceLing 3.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
SciCode
Ling 3.0 Flash41.2%SourceLing 3.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Ling 3.0 Flash84.0%SourceLing 3.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Ling 3.0 Flash65.2%SourceLing 3.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
terminalBench4
Ling 3.0 Flash—Ling 3.1 Flash40.4%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-Atlas Codebase QnA
Ling 3.0 Flash—Ling 3.1 Flash55.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Ling 3.0 Flash85.0%SourceLing 3.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
Ling 3.0 Flash85.0%SourceLing 3.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
HLE
Ling 3.0 Flash22.7%SourceLing 3.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Ling 3.0 Flash84.8%SourceLing 3.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Ling 3.0 Flash82.0%SourceLing 3.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
Ling 3.0 Flash—Ling 3.1 Flash65.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
IFBench
Ling 3.0 Flash74.5%SourceLing 3.1 Flash—Not directly comparable
Math
28 public results · 2 shared
Watch Ling 3.0 Flash vs Ling 3.1 Flash
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.
Last updated September 30, 2026