Claude Haiku 5.5 (Max) vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Which is better for the money: Claude Haiku 5.5 (Max) by Anthropic or Ling 3.1 Flash by InclusionAI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Clear winner
Verdict
Pick Claude Haiku 5.5 (Max)
Ling 3.1 Flash vs Claude Haiku 5.5 (Max): 5.3% less intelligence, 207.2% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 95.7% faster end-to-end.
| Metric | Claude Haiku 5.5 (Max) | Ling 3.1 Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 43.4 | 41.1 | −5.3% Ling 3.1 Flash is 5.3% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $330.25 | $1,014.56 | +207.2% Ling 3.1 Flash is 3.1× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 318.47s | 13.57s | −95.7% Ling 3.1 Flash is 95.7% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.10 / $0.50 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Haiku 5.5 (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
- 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 (Max)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/ling-3-1-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-haiku-5-5/ling-3-1-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill