GPT-5.6 Luna (Xhigh) vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Which is better for the money: GPT-5.6 Luna (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 2026-10-26.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Ling 3.1 Flash scores 6.5 points higher (41.1 vs 34.6) but costs 5.7× as much to run the benchmark ($1015 vs $179; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash when you need intelligence above 34.6, and GPT-5.6 Luna (Xhigh) when 34.6 is enough.
| Metric | GPT-5.6 Luna (Xhigh) | Ling 3.1 Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 34.6 | 41.1 | +18.8% Ling 3.1 Flash is 18.8% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $179.33 | $1,014.56 | +465.8% Ling 3.1 Flash is 5.7× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 45.80s | 13.48s | −70.6% Ling 3.1 Flash is 70.6% faster |
| 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 (Xhigh): 18.8% more intelligence, 465.8% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 70.6% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GPT-5.6 Luna (Xhigh) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Terra (Medium) scores 41.30 for $175.
- 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 (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-5-6-luna-xhigh/ling-3-1-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gpt-5-6-luna-xhigh/ling-3-1-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill