Grok 4.6 (Low) vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Which is better for the money: Grok 4.6 (Low) 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 6.0 points higher (41.1 vs 35.1) but costs 1.7× as much to run the benchmark ($1015 vs $614; both premium class). Pick Ling 3.1 Flash when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Grok 4.6 (Low).
| Metric | Grok 4.6 (Low) | Ling 3.1 Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 35.1 | 41.1 | +17.1% Ling 3.1 Flash is 17.1% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $613.92 | $1,014.56 | +65.3% Ling 3.1 Flash is 65.3% more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 13.64s | 13.56s | −0.6% Ling 3.1 Flash is 0.6% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $6.00 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash vs Grok 4.6 (Low): 17.1% more intelligence, 65.3% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 0.6% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Grok 4.6 (Low) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (High) scores 50.20 for $521.
- 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 4.6 (Low)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-4-6-low/ling-3-1-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/grok-4-6-low/ling-3-1-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill