GPT-5.6 Luna (Medium) vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Which is better for the money: GPT-5.6 Luna (Medium) 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 16.1 points higher (41.1 vs 25.0) but costs 23× as much to run the benchmark ($1015 vs $44.3; premium vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash when you need intelligence above 25.0, and GPT-5.6 Luna (Medium) when 25.0 is enough.
| Metric | GPT-5.6 Luna (Medium) | Ling 3.1 Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 25.0 | 41.1 | +64.4% Ling 3.1 Flash is 64.4% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $44.32 | $1,014.56 | +2189.2% Ling 3.1 Flash is 23× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 6.11s | 13.57s | +122.1% Ling 3.1 Flash is 122.1% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.20 / $1.20 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash vs GPT-5.6 Luna (Medium): 64.4% more intelligence, 2189.2% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 122.1% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GPT-5.6 Luna (Medium) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Medium) scores 29.90 for $31.2.
- 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-5.6 Luna (Medium)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-5-6-luna-medium/ling-3-1-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gpt-5-6-luna-medium/ling-3-1-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill