Claude Sonnet 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) vs Ling 3.1 Flash 1019
Which is better for the money: Claude Sonnet 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.
Clear winner
Verdict
Pick Claude Sonnet 5.5 (High, Default Fallback)
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5 (High, Default Fallback): 6.2% less intelligence, 51.0% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and end-to-end time not fully reported.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) | Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 46.8 | 43.9 | −6.2% Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is 6.2% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,027.40 | $1,551.81 | +51.0% Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is 51.0% more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 14.89s | Not reported | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $10.0 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 (High, 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 Sonnet 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-sonnet-5-5-high/ling-3-1-flash-1019 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-sonnet-5-5-high/ling-3-1-flash-1019?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill