Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 vs Llama 4 Scout
Which is better for the money: Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 by InclusionAI or Llama 4 Scout by Meta? 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
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 scores 37.4 points higher (43.9 vs 6.5) but costs 21× as much to run the benchmark ($1552 vs $73.6; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 when you need intelligence above 6.5, and Llama 4 Scout when 6.5 is enough.
| Metric | Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 | Llama 4 Scout | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 43.9 | 6.5 | −85.2% Llama 4 Scout is 85.2% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,551.81 | $73.56 | −95.3% Llama 4 Scout is 95.3% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | Not reported | 4.99s | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $0.90 | $0.18 / $0.66 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image |
Llama 4 Scout vs Ling 3.1 Flash 1019: 85.2% less intelligence, 95.3% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and end-to-end time not fully reported.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- 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.
- Llama 4 Scout is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Xhigh) scores 34.60 for $66.8.
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019Llama 4 ScoutToday'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/ling-3-1-flash-1019/llama-4-scout · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/ling-3-1-flash-1019/llama-4-scout?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill