Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Which is better for the money: Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) by SpaceXAI or Ling 3.1 Flash by InclusionAI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) scores 5.3 points higher (46.4 vs 41.1) but costs 4.9× as much to run the benchmark ($4967 vs $1015; flagship vs premium cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) when you need intelligence above 41.1, and Ling 3.1 Flash when 41.1 is enough.
| Metric | Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) | Ling 3.1 Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 46.4 | 41.1 | −11.4% Ling 3.1 Flash is 11.4% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $4,967.35 | $1,014.56 | −79.6% Ling 3.1 Flash is 79.6% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 40.31s | 13.66s | −66.1% Ling 3.1 Flash is 66.1% 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 4.7 (Xhigh): 11.4% less intelligence, 79.6% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 66.1% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) scores 56.00 for $4057.
- 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 (Xhigh)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/ling-3-1-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/grok-4-7/ling-3-1-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill