Ling 3.1 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.3 (Xhigh)
Which is better for the money: Ling 3.1 Flash by InclusionAI or Muse Spark 1.3 (Xhigh) by Meta? 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
Muse Spark 1.3 (Xhigh) scores 4.0 points higher (45.1 vs 41.1) but costs 1.6× as much to run the benchmark ($1655 vs $1015; both premium class). Pick Muse Spark 1.3 (Xhigh) when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Ling 3.1 Flash.
| Metric | Ling 3.1 Flash | Muse Spark 1.3 (Xhigh) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 41.1 | 45.1 | +9.7% Muse Spark 1.3 (Xhigh) is 9.7% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,014.56 | $1,655.27 | +63.2% Muse Spark 1.3 (Xhigh) is 63.2% more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 13.66s | 29.94s | +119.2% Muse Spark 1.3 (Xhigh) is 119.2% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $0.90 | $1.25 / $4.25 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image, Video |
Muse Spark 1.3 (Xhigh) vs Ling 3.1 Flash: 9.7% more intelligence, 63.2% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 119.2% slower 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.
- Muse Spark 1.3 (Xhigh) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
Ling 3.1 FlashMuse Spark 1.3 (Xhigh)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/muse-spark-1-3-xhigh · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/ling-3-1-flash/muse-spark-1-3-xhigh?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill