Claude Haiku 5.5 (Low) vs Ling 3.1 Flash 1019
Which is better for the money: Claude Haiku 5.5 (Low) by Anthropic or Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 by InclusionAI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 scores 14.4 points higher (43.9 vs 29.5) but costs 45× as much to run the benchmark ($1552 vs $34.3; premium vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 when you need intelligence above 29.5, and Claude Haiku 5.5 (Low) when 29.5 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Haiku 5.5 (Low) | Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 29.5 | 43.9 | +48.8% Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is 48.8% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $34.31 | $1,551.81 | +4422.9% Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is 45× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 11.45s | Not reported | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.10 / $0.50 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 vs Claude Haiku 5.5 (Low): 48.8% more intelligence, 4422.9% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and end-to-end time not fully reported.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Haiku 5.5 (Low) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Medium) scores 29.90 for $31.2.
- 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.
Claude Haiku 5.5 (Low)Ling 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/claude-haiku-5-5-low/ling-3-1-flash-1019 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-haiku-5-5-low/ling-3-1-flash-1019?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill