# Ling 3.1 Flash vs Muse Wonder

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

- Canonical page: https://benchlm.ai/compare/ling-3-1-flash-vs-muse-wonder
- Last updated: October 12, 2026

- Shared sourced benchmarks: 2
- HTML indexing: indexable
- Ranking lane: BenchAlign v5.8

## Quick Verdict

Evidence is too thin for a benchmark verdict: Ling 3.1 Flash and Muse Wonder share only 2 sourced benchmark rows.

## Summary

- Only 2 shared sourced benchmark rows are 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.
- Muse Wonder has the larger published context window at 1M.

## Model Snapshot

| Property | Ling 3.1 Flash | Muse Wonder |
|----------|----------|----------|
| Creator | InclusionAI | Meta |
| Type | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Reasoning | Reasoning | Reasoning |
| Context | 262K | 1M |
| Independent public score (not head-to-head) | 60.62 | 70.44 |
| Benchmarks Covered | 8 | 6 |
| Pricing (input/output) | Pricing unavailable / Pricing unavailable | $4.00 / $20.00 |

## Category Breakdown

### Agentic

- Winner: Insufficient shared evidence
- Ling 3.1 Flash public-lane score: Coming soon
- Muse Wonder public-lane score: Coming soon

| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Muse Wonder | Winner |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| skillsBench | 68.7% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| AutomationBench | 52.5% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| CyberGym | 87.9% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| Finance Agent v2 | 57.9% | 56.6% | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| DRACO | 85.5% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| JobBench | Coming soon | 70.5% | Coming soon |

### Coding

- Winner: Insufficient shared evidence
- Ling 3.1 Flash public-lane score: Coming soon
- Muse Wonder public-lane score: 69.8 (Supported · #10/148)

| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Muse Wonder | Winner |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| terminalBench4 | 40.4% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| SWE-Atlas Codebase QnA | 55.9% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| DeepSWE | Coming soon | 78.8% | Coming soon |
| ProgramBench | Coming soon | 50.0% | Coming soon |
| sweMarathon | Coming soon | 53.1% | Coming soon |

### Reasoning

- Winner: Insufficient shared evidence
- Ling 3.1 Flash public-lane score: 82.9 (Unranked · 2 rankable rows)
- Muse Wonder public-lane score: 81.3 (Unranked · 2 rankable rows)

### Knowledge

- Winner: Insufficient shared evidence
- Ling 3.1 Flash public-lane score: 63.4 (Estimated · #40/180)
- Muse Wonder public-lane score: 74 (Supported · #12/180)

| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Muse Wonder | Winner |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| HealthBench Professional | 65.3% | 60.5% | Ling 3.1 Flash |

## FAQ

### Is there enough evidence to pick between Ling 3.1 Flash and Muse Wonder?

Not yet. The models share only 2 sourced benchmark rows, 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

- [Ling 3.1 Flash vs Muse Wonder Full](/compare/ling-3-1-flash-vs-muse-wonder-full)
- [Muse Wonder vs Muse Wonder Full](/compare/muse-wonder-vs-muse-wonder-full)
- [Ling 3.1 Flash vs Claude Opus 5.5](/compare/claude-opus-5-5-vs-ling-3-1-flash)
- [Muse Wonder vs Claude Opus 5.5](/compare/claude-opus-5-5-vs-muse-wonder)

## Explore More

- [Ling 3.1 Flash profile](/models/ling-3-1-flash)
- [Muse Wonder profile](/models/muse-wonder)
- [Compare Pricing](/llm-pricing)
- [Alternative Finder](/tools/alternative-finder)
- [LLM Selector](/tools/llm-selector)
- [Overall Rankings](/best/overall)