GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) vs Ling 3.1 Flash 1019
Which is better for the money: GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) by Z AI 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 17.8 points higher (43.9 vs 26.1) but costs 1.0× as much to run the benchmark ($1552 vs $1487; both premium class). Pick Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise GLM-5.1 (Reasoning).
| Metric | GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) | Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 26.1 | 43.9 | +68.2% Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is 68.2% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,486.78 | $1,551.81 | +4.4% Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is 4.4% more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 60.66s | Not reported | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.28 / $4.07 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 vs GLM-5.1 (Reasoning): 68.2% more intelligence, 4.4% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and end-to-end time not fully reported.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GLM-5.1 (Reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
- 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.
GLM-5.1 (Reasoning)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/glm-5-1/ling-3-1-flash-1019 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/glm-5-1/ling-3-1-flash-1019?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill