Granite 4.2 3B vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Which is better for the money: Granite 4.2 3B by IBM or Ling 3.1 Flash by InclusionAI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Ling 3.1 Flash scores 32.0 points higher (41.1 vs 9.1) but costs 68× as much to run the benchmark ($1015 vs $14.9; premium vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash when you need intelligence above 9.1, and Granite 4.2 3B when 9.1 is enough.
| Metric | Granite 4.2 3B | Ling 3.1 Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 9.1 | 41.1 | +351.6% Ling 3.1 Flash is 4.5× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $14.91 | $1,014.56 | +6704.6% Ling 3.1 Flash is 68× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 35.30s | 13.66s | −61.3% Ling 3.1 Flash is 61.3% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.03 / $0.12 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash vs Granite 4.2 3B: 351.6% more intelligence, 6704.6% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 61.3% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Granite 4.2 3B 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.
Granite 4.2 3BLing 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-4-2-3b/ling-3-1-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/granite-4-2-3b/ling-3-1-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill