Celeris-1 vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Which is better for the money: Celeris-1 by Celeris or Ling 3.1 Flash by InclusionAI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Ling 3.1 Flash scores 34.8 points higher (41.1 vs 6.3) but costs 17× as much to run the benchmark ($1015 vs $60.0; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash when you need intelligence above 6.3, and Celeris-1 when 6.3 is enough.
| Metric | Celeris-1 | Ling 3.1 Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 6.3 | 41.1 | +552.4% Ling 3.1 Flash is 6.5× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $59.99 | $1,014.56 | +1591.2% Ling 3.1 Flash is 17× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 0.87s | 13.66s | +1470.1% Ling 3.1 Flash is 1470.1% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.20 / $0.70 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash vs Celeris-1: 552.4% more intelligence, 1591.2% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 1470.1% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Celeris-1 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Haiku 5.5 (Medium) scores 34.50 for $56.4.
- Ling 3.1 Flash is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
Celeris-1Ling 3.1 FlashToday's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/celeris-1/ling-3-1-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/celeris-1/ling-3-1-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill