Claude Sonnet 5 (Low) vs Ling 3.1 Flash 1019
Which is better for the money: Claude Sonnet 5 (Low) 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 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 scores 19.6 points higher (43.9 vs 24.3) but costs 2.4× as much to run the benchmark ($1552 vs $653; both premium class). Pick Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Claude Sonnet 5 (Low).
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 5 (Low) | Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 24.3 | 43.9 | +80.7% Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is 80.7% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $652.70 | $1,551.81 | +137.8% Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is 2.4× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 8.46s | Not reported | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $10.0 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 vs Claude Sonnet 5 (Low): 80.7% more intelligence, 137.8% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and end-to-end time not fully reported.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Sonnet 5 (Low) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (High) scores 50.20 for $521.
- 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 (Low)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-low/ling-3-1-flash-1019 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-sonnet-5-low/ling-3-1-flash-1019?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill