Inkling Small vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Which is better for the money: Inkling Small by Thinking Machines 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
Ling 3.1 Flash scores 15.4 points higher (41.1 vs 25.7) but costs 4.2× as much to run the benchmark ($1015 vs $241; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash when you need intelligence above 25.7, and Inkling Small when 25.7 is enough.
| Metric | Inkling Small | Ling 3.1 Flash | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 25.7 | 41.1 | +59.9% Ling 3.1 Flash is 59.9% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $240.85 | $1,014.56 | +321.2% Ling 3.1 Flash is 4.2× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 12.67s | 13.66s | +7.8% Ling 3.1 Flash is 7.8% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $1.20 | $0.30 / $0.90 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Speech | Text |
Ling 3.1 Flash vs Inkling Small: 59.9% more intelligence, 321.2% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 7.8% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Inkling Small is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
- Ling 3.1 Flash is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
Inkling SmallLing 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/inkling-small/ling-3-1-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/inkling-small/ling-3-1-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill