Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning)
Which is better for the money: Ling 3.1 Flash by InclusionAI or Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning) by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-27.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Ling 3.1 Flash scores 28.4 points higher (41.1 vs 12.7) but costs 4.3× as much to run the benchmark ($1015 vs $234; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash when you need intelligence above 12.7, and Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning) when 12.7 is enough.
| Metric | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 41.1 | 12.7 | −69.1% Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 … is 69.1% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,014.56 | $233.56 | −77.0% Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 … is 77.0% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 13.32s | 21.63s | +62.4% Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 … is 62.4% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $0.90 | $0.23 / $2.30 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning) vs Ling 3.1 Flash: 69.1% less intelligence, 77.0% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 62.4% 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.
- Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
Ling 3.1 FlashQwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning)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/qwen3-235b-a22b-instruct-2507-reasoning · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/ling-3-1-flash/qwen3-235b-a22b-instruct-2507-reasoning?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill