Claude Opus 5 (Low) vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Which is better for the money: Claude Opus 5 (Low) 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 Ling 3.1 Flash
Ling 3.1 Flash vs Claude Opus 5 (Low): 4.3% more intelligence, 35.0% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 19.0% slower end-to-end.
| Metric | Claude Opus 5 (Low) | Ling 3.1 Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 39.4 | 41.1 | +4.3% Ling 3.1 Flash is 4.3% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,560.91 | $1,014.56 | −35.0% Ling 3.1 Flash is 35.0% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 11.44s | 13.61s | +19.0% Ling 3.1 Flash is 19.0% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $5.00 / $25.0 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Opus 5 (Low) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
- 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 (Low)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-low/ling-3-1-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-low/ling-3-1-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill