Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) vs Ling 3.1 Flash 1019
Which is better for the money: Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) 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 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 9.7 points higher (53.6 vs 43.9) but costs 1.4× as much to run the benchmark ($2172 vs $1552; flagship vs premium cost classes). Pick Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Ling 3.1 Flash 1019.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) | Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 53.6 | 43.9 | −18.1% Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is 18.1% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,172.43 | $1,551.81 | −28.6% Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is 28.6% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 33.81s | Not reported | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $4.00 / $20.0 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 vs Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback): 18.1% less intelligence, 28.6% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and end-to-end time not fully reported.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
- 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 Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback)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-opus-5-5-high/ling-3-1-flash-1019 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-5-high/ling-3-1-flash-1019?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill