Celeris-1 vs Ling 3.1 Flash 1019
Which is better for the money: Celeris-1 by Celeris or Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 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 1019 scores 37.6 points higher (43.9 vs 6.3) but costs 26× as much to run the benchmark ($1552 vs $60.0; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 when you need intelligence above 6.3, and Celeris-1 when 6.3 is enough.
| Metric | Celeris-1 | Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 6.3 | 43.9 | +596.8% Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is 7.0× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $59.99 | $1,551.81 | +2486.8% Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is 26× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 0.87s | Not reported | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.20 / $0.70 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 vs Celeris-1: 596.8% more intelligence, 2486.8% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and end-to-end time not fully reported.
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 1019 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
Celeris-1Ling 3.1 Flash 1019Today's Pareto 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-1019 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/celeris-1/ling-3-1-flash-1019?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill