Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Which is better for the money: Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) 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
Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallbac… scores 14.9 points higher (56.0 vs 41.1) but costs 4.0× as much to run the benchmark ($4057 vs $1015; flagship vs premium cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallbac… when you need intelligence above 41.1, and Ling 3.1 Flash when 41.1 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) | Ling 3.1 Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 56.0 | 41.1 | −26.6% Ling 3.1 Flash is 26.6% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $4,056.65 | $1,014.56 | −75.0% Ling 3.1 Flash is 75.0% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 123.06s | 13.66s | −88.9% Ling 3.1 Flash is 88.9% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $4.00 / $20.0 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash vs Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback): 26.6% less intelligence, 75.0% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 88.9% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) 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 Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback)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-opus-5-5-xhigh/ling-3-1-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-5-xhigh/ling-3-1-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill