Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning) vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Which is better for the money: Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning) by SpaceXAI 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 27.1 points higher (41.1 vs 14.0) but costs 4.1× as much to run the benchmark ($1015 vs $250; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash when you need intelligence above 14.0, and Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning) when 14.0 is enough.
| Metric | Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning) | Ling 3.1 Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 14.0 | 41.1 | +193.6% Ling 3.1 Flash is 2.9× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $250.37 | $1,014.56 | +305.2% Ling 3.1 Flash is 4.1× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 5.93s | 13.61s | +129.5% Ling 3.1 Flash is 129.5% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.25 / $2.50 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash vs Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning): 193.6% more intelligence, 305.2% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 129.5% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
- Ling 3.1 Flash is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
Grok 4.3 (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/grok-4-3-non-reasoning/ling-3-1-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/grok-4-3-non-reasoning/ling-3-1-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill