Ling 3.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
Which is better for the money: Ling 3.1 Flash by InclusionAI or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning by NVIDIA? 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 scores 28.2 points higher (41.1 vs 12.9) but costs 11× as much to run the benchmark ($1015 vs $92.8; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash when you need intelligence above 12.9, and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning when 12.9 is enough.
| Metric | Ling 3.1 Flash | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 41.1 | 12.9 | −68.6% Nemotron 3.5 Lightning is 68.6% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,014.56 | $92.76 | −90.9% Nemotron 3.5 Lightning is 90.9% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 13.66s | 9.16s | −32.9% Nemotron 3.5 Lightning is 32.9% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $0.90 | $0.06 / $0.20 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning vs Ling 3.1 Flash: 68.6% less intelligence, 90.9% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 32.9% 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.
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Xhigh) scores 34.60 for $66.8.
Ling 3.1 FlashNemotron 3.5 LightningToday'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/nemotron-3-5-lightning · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/ling-3-1-flash/nemotron-3-5-lightning?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill