Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 vs LongCat 2.0
Which is better for the money: Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 by InclusionAI or LongCat 2.0 by LongCat? 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 24.8 points higher (43.9 vs 19.1) but costs 2.8× as much to run the benchmark ($1552 vs $545; both premium class). Pick Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise LongCat 2.0.
| Metric | Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 | LongCat 2.0 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 43.9 | 19.1 | −56.5% LongCat 2.0 is 56.5% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,551.81 | $544.74 | −64.9% LongCat 2.0 is 64.9% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | Not reported | 35.51s | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $0.90 | $0.75 / $2.95 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
LongCat 2.0 vs Ling 3.1 Flash 1019: 56.5% less intelligence, 64.9% 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.
- LongCat 2.0 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (High) scores 50.20 for $521.
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019LongCat 2.0Today'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/longcat-2-0 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/ling-3-1-flash-1019/longcat-2-0?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill