Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Which is better for the money: Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 by InclusionAI or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 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 4.1 points higher (43.9 vs 39.8) but costs 4.3× as much to run the benchmark ($1552 vs $363; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 when you need intelligence above 39.8, and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next when 39.8 is enough.
| Metric | Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 43.9 | 39.8 | −9.3% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 9.3% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,551.81 | $362.72 | −76.6% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 76.6% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | Not reported | 50.51s | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $0.90 | $0.15 / $0.47 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs Ling 3.1 Flash 1019: 9.3% less intelligence, 76.6% 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-Flash-Next is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019Qwen3.8-Flash-NextToday'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-flash-next · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/ling-3-1-flash-1019/qwen3-8-flash-next?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill