DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 (Max) vs Ling 3.1 Flash 1019
Which is better for the money: DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 (Max) by DeepSeek or Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 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 1019 scores 9.6 points higher (43.9 vs 34.3) but costs 7.8× as much to run the benchmark ($1552 vs $200; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 when you need intelligence above 34.3, and DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 (Max) when 34.3 is enough.
| Metric | DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 (Max) | Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 34.3 | 43.9 | +28.0% Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is 28.0% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $199.63 | $1,551.81 | +677.3% Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is 7.8× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 17.94s | Not reported | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.14 / $0.28 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 (Max): 28.0% more intelligence, 677.3% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and end-to-end time not fully reported.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 (Max) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Haiku 5.5 (Xhigh) scores 41.20 for $158.
- Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731 (Max)Ling 3.1 Flash 1019Today'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/ling-3-1-flash-1019 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/deepseek-v4-flash/ling-3-1-flash-1019?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill