Claude Haiku 5.5 (High) vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Which is better for the money: Claude Haiku 5.5 (High) by Anthropic 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 3.3 points higher (41.1 vs 37.8) but costs 11× as much to run the benchmark ($1015 vs $94.1; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash when you need intelligence above 37.8, and Claude Haiku 5.5 (High) when 37.8 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Haiku 5.5 (High) | Ling 3.1 Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 37.8 | 41.1 | +8.7% Ling 3.1 Flash is 8.7% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $94.07 | $1,014.56 | +978.5% Ling 3.1 Flash is 11× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 26.02s | 13.66s | −47.5% Ling 3.1 Flash is 47.5% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.10 / $0.50 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash vs Claude Haiku 5.5 (High): 8.7% more intelligence, 978.5% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 47.5% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Haiku 5.5 (High) is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
- Ling 3.1 Flash is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
Claude Haiku 5.5 (High)Ling 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/claude-haiku-5-5-high/ling-3-1-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-haiku-5-5-high/ling-3-1-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill