DeepSeek V4 Flash 0420 (Max) vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0420 (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 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Ling 3.1 Flash scores 16.9 points higher (41.1 vs 24.2) but costs 6.8× as much to run the benchmark ($1015 vs $149; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash when you need intelligence above 24.2, and DeepSeek V4 Flash 0420 (Max) when 24.2 is enough.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Flash 0420 (Max) | Ling 3.1 Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 24.2 | 41.1 | +69.8% Ling 3.1 Flash is 69.8% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $149.48 | $1,014.56 | +578.7% Ling 3.1 Flash is 6.8× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 116.79s | 13.66s | −88.3% Ling 3.1 Flash is 88.3% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.11 / $0.23 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash vs DeepSeek V4 Flash 0420 (Max): 69.8% more intelligence, 578.7% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 88.3% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- DeepSeek V4 Flash 0420 (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Max) scores 38.10 for $122.
- 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 Flash 0420 (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-flash-0420/ling-3-1-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-flash-0420/ling-3-1-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill