Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 vs Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning)
Which is better for the money: Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 by InclusionAI or Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 scores 22.5 points higher (43.9 vs 21.4) but costs 1.4× as much to run the benchmark ($1552 vs $1145; both premium class). Pick Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning).
| Metric | Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 | Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 43.9 | 21.4 | −51.3% Qwen3.6 27B (Reasonin… is 51.3% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,551.81 | $1,145.36 | −26.2% Qwen3.6 27B (Reasonin… is 26.2% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | Not reported | 111.39s | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $0.90 | $0.60 / $3.60 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) vs Ling 3.1 Flash 1019: 51.3% less intelligence, 26.2% 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.
- Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning)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/qwen3-6-27b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/ling-3-1-flash-1019/qwen3-6-27b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill