Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning) vs Ling 3.1 Flash 1019
Which is better for the money: Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning) by SpaceXAI or Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 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 1019 scores 29.9 points higher (43.9 vs 14.0) but costs 6.2× as much to run the benchmark ($1552 vs $250; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 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 1019 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 14.0 | 43.9 | +213.6% Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is 3.1× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $250.37 | $1,551.81 | +519.8% Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is 6.2× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 5.89s | Not reported | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $1.25 / $2.50 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 vs Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning): 213.6% more intelligence, 519.8% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and end-to-end time not fully reported.
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 1019 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
Grok 4.3 (Non-reasoning)Ling 3.1 Flash 1019Today's Pareto 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-1019 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/grok-4-3-non-reasoning/ling-3-1-flash-1019?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill