Ling 3.1 Flash vs Llama 4 Maverick
Which is better for the money: Ling 3.1 Flash by InclusionAI or Llama 4 Maverick by Meta? 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
Ling 3.1 Flash scores 31.8 points higher (41.1 vs 9.3) but costs 23× as much to run the benchmark ($1015 vs $44.0; premium vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash when you need intelligence above 9.3, and Llama 4 Maverick when 9.3 is enough.
| Metric | Ling 3.1 Flash | Llama 4 Maverick | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 41.1 | 9.3 | −77.4% Llama 4 Maverick is 77.4% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,014.56 | $43.98 | −95.7% Llama 4 Maverick is 95.7% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 13.56s | 10.45s | −22.9% Llama 4 Maverick is 22.9% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $0.90 | $0.25 / $0.92 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image |
Llama 4 Maverick vs Ling 3.1 Flash: 77.4% less intelligence, 95.7% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 22.9% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Ling 3.1 Flash is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
- Llama 4 Maverick is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Medium) scores 29.90 for $31.2.
Ling 3.1 FlashLlama 4 MaverickToday'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/llama-4-maverick · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/ling-3-1-flash/llama-4-maverick?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill