# Grok 4.7 vs Ling 3.1 Flash

> Side-by-side benchmark comparison for Grok 4.7 and Ling 3.1 Flash across agentic, coding, multimodal, knowledge, reasoning, multilingual, and math tasks.

- Canonical page: https://benchlm.ai/compare/grok-4-7-vs-ling-3-1-flash
- Last updated: September 30, 2026

- Shared sourced benchmarks: 1
- HTML indexing: indexable
- Ranking lane: BenchAlign v5.7

## Quick Verdict

Evidence is too thin for a benchmark verdict: Grok 4.7 and Ling 3.1 Flash share only 1 sourced benchmark row.

## Summary

- Only 1 shared sourced benchmark row is available. That is not enough for a broad capability verdict, so this mirror does not name an overall winner.
- Ling 3.1 Flash has the lower published output-token price.
- Grok 4.7 has the larger published context window at 500K.

## Model Snapshot

| Property | Grok 4.7 | Ling 3.1 Flash |
|----------|----------|----------|
| Creator | xAI | InclusionAI |
| Type | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Reasoning | Reasoning | Reasoning |
| Context | 500K | 262K |
| Independent public score (not head-to-head) | null | null |
| Benchmarks Covered | 8 | 8 |
| Pricing (input/output) | $2.00 / $6.00 | Pricing unavailable / Pricing unavailable |

## Category Breakdown

### Agentic

- Winner: Insufficient shared evidence
- Grok 4.7 public-lane score: Coming soon
- Ling 3.1 Flash public-lane score: Coming soon

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Ling 3.1 Flash | Winner |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 | 38.00% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | 73.4% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| CWE-bench v1 | 68.0% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| skillsBench | Coming soon | 68.7% | Coming soon |
| AutomationBench | Coming soon | 52.5% | Coming soon |
| CyberGym | Coming soon | 87.9% | Coming soon |
| Finance Agent v2 | Coming soon | 57.9% | Coming soon |
| DRACO | Coming soon | 85.5% | Coming soon |

### Coding

- Winner: Insufficient shared evidence
- Grok 4.7 public-lane score: Coming soon
- Ling 3.1 Flash public-lane score: Coming soon

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Ling 3.1 Flash | Winner |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| cursorBench40 | 46.3% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| DeepSWE | 71.0% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| EEBench | 64.0% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| FrontierSWE v2 | 29.5% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| terminalBench4 | Coming soon | 40.4% | Coming soon |
| SWE-Atlas Codebase QnA | Coming soon | 55.9% | Coming soon |

### Reasoning

- Winner: Insufficient shared evidence
- Grok 4.7 public-lane score: 75 (#14/27)
- Ling 3.1 Flash public-lane score: Coming soon

### Knowledge

- Winner: Insufficient shared evidence
- Grok 4.7 public-lane score: Coming soon
- Ling 3.1 Flash public-lane score: Coming soon

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Ling 3.1 Flash | Winner |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| HealthBench Professional | 56.7% | 65.3% | Ling 3.1 Flash |

## FAQ

### Is there enough evidence to pick between Grok 4.7 and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Not yet. The models share only 1 sourced benchmark row, so this mirror reports the available measurements and metadata without naming a broad winner.

### What can I compare safely on this page?

Published pricing, context windows, model type, and individual shared benchmark rows are directly comparable. Independent overall scores and non-overlapping benchmark coverage are labeled separately and should not be read as a controlled head-to-head result.

## Related Comparisons

- [Grok 4.7 vs GPT-6 Astra](/compare/gpt-6-astra-vs-grok-4-7)
- [Ling 3.1 Flash vs GPT-6 Astra](/compare/gpt-6-astra-vs-ling-3-1-flash)
- [Grok 4.7 vs Claude Opus 5.5](/compare/claude-opus-5-5-vs-grok-4-7)
- [Ling 3.1 Flash vs Claude Opus 5.5](/compare/claude-opus-5-5-vs-ling-3-1-flash)

## Explore More

- [Grok 4.7 profile](/models/grok-4-7)
- [Ling 3.1 Flash profile](/models/ling-3-1-flash)
- [Compare Pricing](/llm-pricing)
- [Alternative Finder](/tools/alternative-finder)
- [LLM Selector](/tools/llm-selector)
- [Overall Rankings](/best/overall)