Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 vs Mistral Small 3.1
Which is better for the money: Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 by InclusionAI or Mistral Small 3.1 by Mistral? 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 36.8 points higher (43.9 vs 7.1) but costs 56× as much to run the benchmark ($1552 vs $27.8; premium vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 when you need intelligence above 7.1, and Mistral Small 3.1 when 7.1 is enough.
| Metric | Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 | Mistral Small 3.1 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 43.9 | 7.1 | −83.8% Mistral Small 3.1 is 83.8% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,551.81 | $27.82 | −98.2% Mistral Small 3.1 is 98.2% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | Not reported | 11.25s | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $0.90 | $0.08 / $0.14 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image |
Mistral Small 3.1 vs Ling 3.1 Flash 1019: 83.8% less intelligence, 98.2% 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.
- Mistral Small 3.1 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Low) scores 21.50 for $10.6.
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019Mistral Small 3.1Today'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/mistral-small-3-1 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/ling-3-1-flash-1019/mistral-small-3-1?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill