Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning)
Which is better for the money: Ling 3.1 Flash by InclusionAI or Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) by Alibaba? 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 29.9 points higher (41.1 vs 11.2) but costs 3.1× as much to run the benchmark ($1015 vs $329; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ling 3.1 Flash when you need intelligence above 11.2, and Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) when 11.2 is enough.
| Metric | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 41.1 | 11.2 | −72.7% Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) is 72.7% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,014.56 | $328.86 | −67.6% Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) is 67.6% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 13.56s | 43.21s | +218.7% Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) is 218.7% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $0.90 | $0.14 / $0.20 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) vs Ling 3.1 Flash: 72.7% less intelligence, 67.6% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 218.7% 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.
- Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
Ling 3.1 FlashQwen3.5 9B (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/qwen3-5-9b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/ling-3-1-flash/qwen3-5-9b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill