Grok 4.7 (Low) vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Which is better for the money: Grok 4.7 (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
Grok 4.7 (Low) scores 1.1 points higher (42.2 vs 41.1) but costs 1.6× as much to run the benchmark ($1631 vs $1015; both premium class). Pick Grok 4.7 (Low) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Ling 3.1 Flash.
| Metric | Grok 4.7 (Low) | Ling 3.1 Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 42.2 | 41.1 | −2.6% Ling 3.1 Flash is 2.6% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,630.69 | $1,014.56 | −37.8% Ling 3.1 Flash is 37.8% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 12.90s | 13.57s | +5.2% Ling 3.1 Flash is 5.2% slower |
| 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 4.7 (Low): 2.6% less intelligence, 37.8% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 5.2% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Grok 4.7 (Low) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
- 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 4.7 (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-4-7-low/ling-3-1-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/grok-4-7-low/ling-3-1-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill