# Ling 3.1 Flash vs Sage-A1.5

> Side-by-side benchmark comparison for Ling 3.1 Flash and Sage-A1.5 across agentic, coding, multimodal, knowledge, reasoning, multilingual, and math tasks.

- Canonical page: https://benchlm.ai/compare/ling-3-1-flash-vs-sage-a1-5
- Last updated: October 20, 2026

- Shared sourced benchmarks: 3
- HTML indexing: indexable
- Ranking lane: BenchAlign v5.8

## Quick Verdict

Evidence is too thin for a benchmark verdict: Ling 3.1 Flash and Sage-A1.5 share only 3 sourced benchmark rows.

## Summary

- Only 3 shared sourced benchmark rows are available. That is not enough for a broad capability verdict, so this mirror does not name an overall winner.
- Sage-A1.5 has the lower published output-token price.

## Model Snapshot

| Property | Ling 3.1 Flash | Sage-A1.5 |
|----------|----------|----------|
| Creator | InclusionAI | InternScience |
| Type | Open Weight | Open Weight |
| Reasoning | Reasoning | Reasoning |
| Context | 262K | 262K |
| Independent public score (not head-to-head) | 68.05 | 62.95 |
| Benchmarks Covered | 17 | 12 |
| Pricing (input/output) | Pricing unavailable / Pricing unavailable | $0.00 / $0.00 |

## Category Breakdown

### Agentic

- Winner: Insufficient shared evidence
- Ling 3.1 Flash public-lane score: 62.8 (Estimated · #22/132)
- Sage-A1.5 public-lane score: 57.7 (Estimated · #36/132)

| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Sage-A1.5 | 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% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| DRACO | 85.5% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 | 81.2% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| τ³-bench results | 47.8% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| MCP Atlas | 83% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| BrowseComp | 91.7% | 81.7% | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| WideResearch | 83.3% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| GAIA | Coming soon | 95.1% | Coming soon |
| MLE-Bench Lite | Coming soon | 65.2% | Coming soon |
| HLE w/ tools | Coming soon | 55.1% | Coming soon |
| VITA-Bench | Coming soon | 45.4% | Coming soon |
| PinchBench | Coming soon | 90.0% | Coming soon |

### Coding

- Winner: Insufficient shared evidence
- Ling 3.1 Flash public-lane score: 57.2 (Estimated · #27/153)
- Sage-A1.5 public-lane score: 54 (Estimated · #34/153)

| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Sage-A1.5 | Winner |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| terminalBench4 | 46.0% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| SWE-Atlas Codebase QnA | 64.5% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| SWE Multilingual | 88.5% | 72.7% | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| SWE-bench Pro | 68.7% | 61.2% | Ling 3.1 Flash |
| DeepSWE | 59.7% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| SciCode | Coming soon | 44.3% | Coming soon |

### Reasoning

- Winner: Insufficient shared evidence
- Ling 3.1 Flash public-lane score: 82 (Unranked · 2 rankable rows)
- Sage-A1.5 public-lane score: 80.6 (Unranked · 2 rankable rows)

| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Sage-A1.5 | Winner |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| CritPt | Coming soon | 20.0% | Coming soon |

### Knowledge

- Winner: Insufficient shared evidence
- Ling 3.1 Flash public-lane score: 63.4 (Supported · #43/187)
- Sage-A1.5 public-lane score: Coming soon

| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Sage-A1.5 | Winner |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| HealthBench Professional | 65.3% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| HLE | 37.4% | Coming soon | Coming soon |
| FrontierScience Research | Coming soon | 48.3% | Coming soon |

### Instruction Following

- Winner: Insufficient shared evidence
- Ling 3.1 Flash public-lane score: Coming soon
- Sage-A1.5 public-lane score: 91.9 (#22/152)

| Benchmark | Ling 3.1 Flash | Sage-A1.5 | Winner |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| IFBench | Coming soon | 81.6% | Coming soon |

## FAQ

### Is there enough evidence to pick between Ling 3.1 Flash and Sage-A1.5?

Not yet. The models share only 3 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 Sage-A1.5-F16-GGUF](/compare/ling-3-1-flash-vs-sage-a1-5-f16-gguf)
- [Sage-A1.5 vs Sage-A1.5-F16-GGUF](/compare/sage-a1-5-vs-sage-a1-5-f16-gguf)
- [Ling 3.1 Flash vs Sage-A1.5-FP8](/compare/ling-3-1-flash-vs-sage-a1-5-fp8)
- [Sage-A1.5 vs Sage-A1.5-FP8](/compare/sage-a1-5-vs-sage-a1-5-fp8)

## Explore More

- [Ling 3.1 Flash profile](/models/ling-3-1-flash)
- [Sage-A1.5 profile](/models/sage-a1-5)
- [Compare Pricing](/llm-pricing)
- [Alternative Finder](/tools/alternative-finder)
- [LLM Selector](/tools/llm-selector)
- [Overall Rankings](/best/overall)