GPT-5.4 nano (Xhigh) vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Which is better for the money: GPT-5.4 nano (Xhigh) by OpenAI or Ling 3.1 Flash 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 scores 20.4 points higher (41.1 vs 20.7) but costs 3.1× as much to run the benchmark ($1015 vs $331; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash when you need intelligence above 20.7, and GPT-5.4 nano (Xhigh) when 20.7 is enough.
| Metric | GPT-5.4 nano (Xhigh) | Ling 3.1 Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 20.7 | 41.1 | +98.6% Ling 3.1 Flash is 98.6% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $331.24 | $1,014.56 | +206.3% Ling 3.1 Flash is 3.1× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 80.72s | 13.57s | −83.2% Ling 3.1 Flash is 83.2% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.20 / $1.25 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash vs GPT-5.4 nano (Xhigh): 98.6% more intelligence, 206.3% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 83.2% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GPT-5.4 nano (Xhigh) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
- Ling 3.1 Flash is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
GPT-5.4 nano (Xhigh)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/gpt-5-4-nano/ling-3-1-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gpt-5-4-nano/ling-3-1-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill