DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) by DeepSeek 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.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Ling 3.1 Flash scores 29.7 points higher (41.1 vs 11.4) but costs 2.2× as much to run the benchmark ($1015 vs $461; premium vs mid-range cost classes). Pick Ling 3.1 Flash when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25).
| Metric | DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) | Ling 3.1 Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 11.4 | 41.1 | +260.5% Ling 3.1 Flash is 3.6× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $460.74 | $1,014.56 | +120.2% Ling 3.1 Flash is 2.2× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 20.16s | 13.56s | −32.7% Ling 3.1 Flash is 32.7% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $4.00 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash vs DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25): 260.5% more intelligence, 120.2% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 32.7% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
- Ling 3.1 Flash is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
DeepSeek R1 (Jan '25)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/deepseek-r1-0120/ling-3-1-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-r1-0120/ling-3-1-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill