Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 vs Qwen3 Coder Next
Which is better for the money: Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 by InclusionAI or Qwen3 Coder Next by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 scores 34.7 points higher (43.9 vs 9.2) but costs 3.8× as much to run the benchmark ($1552 vs $405; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 when you need intelligence above 9.2, and Qwen3 Coder Next when 9.2 is enough.
| Metric | Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 | Qwen3 Coder Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 43.9 | 9.2 | −79.0% Qwen3 Coder Next is 79.0% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,551.81 | $405.10 | −73.9% Qwen3 Coder Next is 73.9% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | Not reported | 6.44s | — not comparable |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $0.90 | $0.31 / $1.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Qwen3 Coder Next vs Ling 3.1 Flash 1019: 79.0% less intelligence, 73.9% 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 Coder 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 Coder 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-coder-next · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/ling-3-1-flash-1019/qwen3-coder-next?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill