Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 vs Muse Ember (Xhigh)
Which is better for the money: Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 by InclusionAI or Muse Ember (Xhigh) by Meta? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-11-10.
Clear winner
Verdict
Pick Muse Ember (Xhigh)
Muse Ember (Xhigh) vs Ling 3.1 Flash 1019: 15.2% more intelligence, 95.2% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and end-to-end time not fully reported.
| Metric | Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 | Muse Ember (Xhigh) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 29.6 | 34.1 | +15.2% Muse Ember (Xhigh) is 15.2% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,009.23 | $95.73 | −95.2% Muse Ember (Xhigh) is 95.2% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | Not reported | 9.48s | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $0.90 | $0.10 / $0.50 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image |
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 54.60 for $1124.
- Muse Ember (Xhigh) is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019Muse Ember (Xhigh)Today'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/muse-ember-xhigh · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/ling-3-1-flash-1019/muse-ember-xhigh?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill