Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 vs Qwen3.8 Max (0902)
Which is better for the money: Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 by InclusionAI or Qwen3.8 Max (0902) by Alibaba? 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
Qwen3.8 Max (0902) scores 1.5 points higher (45.4 vs 43.9) but costs 3.2× as much to run the benchmark ($4935 vs $1552; flagship vs premium cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 Max (0902) when you need intelligence above 43.9, and Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 when 43.9 is enough.
| Metric | Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 | Qwen3.8 Max (0902) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 43.9 | 45.4 | +3.4% Qwen3.8 Max (0902) is 3.4% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,551.81 | $4,934.79 | +218.0% Qwen3.8 Max (0902) is 3.2× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | Not reported | 62.92s | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $0.90 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image |
Qwen3.8 Max (0902) vs Ling 3.1 Flash 1019: 3.4% more intelligence, 218.0% more 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 Max (0902) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) scores 56.00 for $4057.
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019Qwen3.8 Max (0902)Today's Pareto 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-max · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/ling-3-1-flash-1019/qwen3-8-max?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill