DeepSeek V3 (Dec '24) vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek V3 (Dec '24) by DeepSeek or Ling 3.1 Flash by InclusionAI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Ling 3.1 Flash scores 32.6 points higher (41.1 vs 8.5) but costs 40× as much to run the benchmark ($1015 vs $25.4; premium vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash when you need intelligence above 8.5, and DeepSeek V3 (Dec '24) when 8.5 is enough.
| Metric | DeepSeek V3 (Dec '24) | Ling 3.1 Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 8.5 | 41.1 | +383.5% Ling 3.1 Flash is 4.8× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $25.37 | $1,014.56 | +3899.1% Ling 3.1 Flash is 40× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 11.89s | 13.66s | +14.9% Ling 3.1 Flash is 14.9% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.32 / $0.89 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash vs DeepSeek V3 (Dec '24): 383.5% more intelligence, 3899.1% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 14.9% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- DeepSeek V3 (Dec '24) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Low) scores 21.50 for $10.6.
- 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 V3 (Dec '24)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-v3/ling-3-1-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v3/ling-3-1-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill