Inkling 2 Small vs Ling 3.1 Flash 1019
Which is better for the money: Inkling 2 Small by Thinking Machines or Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 by InclusionAI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-11-06.
Clear winner
Verdict
Pick Inkling 2 Small
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 vs Inkling 2 Small: 3.3% less intelligence, 153.8% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and end-to-end time not fully reported.
| Metric | Inkling 2 Small | Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 30.6 | 29.6 | −3.3% Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is 3.3% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $791.81 | $2,009.23 | +153.8% Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is 2.5× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 20.92s | Not reported | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $1.00 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Inkling 2 Small is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 52.50 for $718.
- Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 54.60 for $1124.
Inkling 2 SmallLing 3.1 Flash 1019Today'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/inkling-2-small/ling-3-1-flash-1019 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/inkling-2-small/ling-3-1-flash-1019?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill