Granite 4.2 30B vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Which is better for the money: Granite 4.2 30B by IBM 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 28.4 points higher (41.1 vs 12.7) but costs 9.2× as much to run the benchmark ($1015 vs $111; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash when you need intelligence above 12.7, and Granite 4.2 30B when 12.7 is enough.
| Metric | Granite 4.2 30B | Ling 3.1 Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 12.7 | 41.1 | +223.6% Ling 3.1 Flash is 3.2× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $110.83 | $1,014.56 | +815.4% Ling 3.1 Flash is 9.2× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 55.20s | 13.56s | −75.4% Ling 3.1 Flash is 75.4% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.16 / $0.65 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash vs Granite 4.2 30B: 223.6% more intelligence, 815.4% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 75.4% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Granite 4.2 30B is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores 37.90 for $110.
- Ling 3.1 Flash is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
Granite 4.2 30BLing 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/granite-4-2-30b/ling-3-1-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/granite-4-2-30b/ling-3-1-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill