Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 vs Qwen3.8 27B (Low)
Which is better for the money: Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 by InclusionAI or Qwen3.8 27B (Low) 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 17.7 points higher (43.9 vs 26.2) but costs 1.5× as much to run the benchmark ($1552 vs $1060; both premium class). Pick Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Qwen3.8 27B (Low).
| Metric | Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 | Qwen3.8 27B (Low) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 43.9 | 26.2 | −40.3% Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is 40.3% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,551.81 | $1,060.08 | −31.7% Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is 31.7% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | Not reported | 55.56s | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $0.90 | $0.50 / $3.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.8 27B (Low) vs Ling 3.1 Flash 1019: 40.3% less intelligence, 31.7% 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.
- Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019Qwen3.8 27B (Low)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/qwen3-8-27b-low · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/ling-3-1-flash-1019/qwen3-8-27b-low?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill