DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Max) vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Max) 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 1.6 points higher (41.1 vs 39.5) but costs 1.5× as much to run the benchmark ($1015 vs $672; both premium class). Pick Ling 3.1 Flash when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Max).
| Metric | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Max) | Ling 3.1 Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 39.5 | 41.1 | +4.1% Ling 3.1 Flash is 4.1% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $671.96 | $1,014.56 | +51.0% Ling 3.1 Flash is 51.0% more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 15.00s | 13.61s | −9.3% Ling 3.1 Flash is 9.3% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.29 / $1.20 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Max): 4.1% more intelligence, 51.0% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 9.3% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
- 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 (Max)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/ling-3-1-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-1-flash/ling-3-1-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill