GLM-5.3 (Low) vs Ling 3.1 Flash 1019
Which is better for the money: GLM-5.3 (Low) 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 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 scores 9.6 points higher (43.9 vs 34.3) but costs 1.5× as much to run the benchmark ($1552 vs $1013; both premium class). Pick Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise GLM-5.3 (Low).
| Metric | GLM-5.3 (Low) | 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) | $1,012.50 | $1,551.81 | +53.3% Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is 53.3% more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 31.21s | Not reported | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.40 / $4.40 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 vs GLM-5.3 (Low): 28.0% more intelligence, 53.3% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and end-to-end time not fully reported.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GLM-5.3 (Low) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
- 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-5.3 (Low)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-5-3-low/ling-3-1-flash-1019 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/glm-5-3-low/ling-3-1-flash-1019?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill