GPT-6 Luna (Non-reasoning) vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Which is better for the money: GPT-6 Luna (Non-reasoning) 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 22.6 points higher (41.1 vs 18.5) but costs 53× as much to run the benchmark ($1015 vs $19.2; premium vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash when you need intelligence above 18.5, and GPT-6 Luna (Non-reasoning) when 18.5 is enough.
| Metric | GPT-6 Luna (Non-reasoning) | Ling 3.1 Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 18.5 | 41.1 | +122.2% Ling 3.1 Flash is 2.2× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $19.16 | $1,014.56 | +5195.2% Ling 3.1 Flash is 53× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 5.09s | 13.57s | +166.6% Ling 3.1 Flash is 166.6% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.10 / $0.50 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash vs GPT-6 Luna (Non-reasoning): 122.2% more intelligence, 5195.2% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 166.6% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GPT-6 Luna (Non-reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Low) scores 21.50 for $10.6.
- 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-6 Luna (Non-reasoning)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-6-luna-non-reasoning/ling-3-1-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gpt-6-luna-non-reasoning/ling-3-1-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill