Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning) vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Which is better for the money: Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning) by Google 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 32.2 points higher (41.1 vs 8.9) but costs 69× as much to run the benchmark ($1015 vs $14.7; premium vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash when you need intelligence above 8.9, and Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning) when 8.9 is enough.
| Metric | Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning) | Ling 3.1 Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 8.9 | 41.1 | +361.8% Ling 3.1 Flash is 4.6× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $14.68 | $1,014.56 | +6811.2% Ling 3.1 Flash is 69× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 57.75s | 13.66s | −76.3% Ling 3.1 Flash is 76.3% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.02 / $0.10 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Speech, Video | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash vs Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning): 361.8% more intelligence, 6811.2% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 76.3% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Gemma 4 E4B (Reasoning) 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.
Gemma 4 E4B (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/gemma-4-e4b/ling-3-1-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gemma-4-e4b/ling-3-1-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill