Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) vs Ling 3.1 Flash 1019
Which is better for the money: Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, 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
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 scores 1.6 points higher (43.9 vs 42.3) but costs 1.8× as much to run the benchmark ($1552 vs $860; both premium class). Pick Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback).
| Metric | Claude Opus 5.5 (Low, Default Fallback) | Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 42.3 | 43.9 | +3.8% Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is 3.8% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $860.33 | $1,551.81 | +80.4% Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is 80.4% more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 13.42s | 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 (Low, Default Fallback): 3.8% more intelligence, 80.4% more 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 (Low, Default Fallback) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
- 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 (Low, 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-low/ling-3-1-flash-1019 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-5-low/ling-3-1-flash-1019?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill