Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 vs Mistral Small 3.2
Which is better for the money: Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 by InclusionAI or Mistral Small 3.2 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 36.9 points higher (43.9 vs 7.0) but costs 13× as much to run the benchmark ($1552 vs $122; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 when you need intelligence above 7.0, and Mistral Small 3.2 when 7.0 is enough.
| Metric | Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 | Mistral Small 3.2 | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 43.9 | 7.0 | −84.1% Mistral Small 3.2 is 84.1% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,551.81 | $121.78 | −92.2% Mistral Small 3.2 is 92.2% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | Not reported | 11.35s | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $0.90 | $0.07 / $0.20 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image |
Mistral Small 3.2 vs Ling 3.1 Flash 1019: 84.1% less intelligence, 92.2% 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 3.2 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Flash scores 37.90 for $110.
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019Mistral Small 3.2Today'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-3-2 · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/ling-3-1-flash-1019/mistral-small-3-2?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill