DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) 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 16.4 points higher (41.1 vs 24.7) but costs 4.2× as much to run the benchmark ($1015 vs $239; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash when you need intelligence above 24.7, and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) when 24.7 is enough.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) | Ling 3.1 Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 24.7 | 41.1 | +66.4% Ling 3.1 Flash is 66.4% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $238.91 | $1,014.56 | +324.7% Ling 3.1 Flash is 4.2× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 2.61s | 13.66s | +423.4% Ling 3.1 Flash is 423.4% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $1.20 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning): 66.4% more intelligence, 324.7% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 423.4% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
- 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 V4.1 Flash (Non-reasoning)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-v4-1-flash-non-reasoning/ling-3-1-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash-non-reasoning/ling-3-1-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill