gpt-oss-120b (High) vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Which is better for the money: gpt-oss-120b (High) by OpenAI or Ling 3.1 Flash by InclusionAI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Ling 3.1 Flash scores 29.5 points higher (41.1 vs 11.6) but costs 8.3× as much to run the benchmark ($1015 vs $123; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash when you need intelligence above 11.6, and gpt-oss-120b (High) when 11.6 is enough.
| Metric | gpt-oss-120b (High) | Ling 3.1 Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 11.6 | 41.1 | +254.3% Ling 3.1 Flash is 3.5× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $122.71 | $1,014.56 | +726.8% Ling 3.1 Flash is 8.3× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 12.38s | 13.66s | +10.3% Ling 3.1 Flash is 10.3% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.15 / $0.60 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash vs gpt-oss-120b (High): 254.3% more intelligence, 726.8% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 10.3% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- gpt-oss-120b (High) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Max) scores 38.10 for $122.
- 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-oss-120b (High)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-oss-120b/ling-3-1-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gpt-oss-120b/ling-3-1-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill