Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) vs Ling 3.1 Flash 1019
Which is better for the money: Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) 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
Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) scores 2.5 points higher (46.4 vs 43.9) but costs 3.2× as much to run the benchmark ($4967 vs $1552; flagship vs premium cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) when you need intelligence above 43.9, and Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 when 43.9 is enough.
| Metric | Grok 4.7 (Xhigh) | Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 46.4 | 43.9 | −5.4% Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is 5.4% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $4,967.35 | $1,551.81 | −68.8% Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is 68.8% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 40.07s | Not reported | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $2.00 / $6.00 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 vs Grok 4.7 (Xhigh): 5.4% less intelligence, 68.8% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and end-to-end time not fully reported.
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 1019 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
Grok 4.7 (Xhigh)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-4-7/ling-3-1-flash-1019 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/grok-4-7/ling-3-1-flash-1019?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill