Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Which is better for the money: Ling 3.1 Flash by InclusionAI or Qwen3.7 Plus 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 15.9 points higher (41.1 vs 25.2) but costs 2.4× as much to run the benchmark ($1015 vs $428; premium vs mid-range cost classes). Pick Ling 3.1 Flash when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Qwen3.7 Plus.
| Metric | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.7 Plus | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 41.1 | 25.2 | −38.7% Qwen3.7 Plus is 38.7% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,014.56 | $427.73 | −57.8% Qwen3.7 Plus is 57.8% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 13.64s | 46.20s | +238.7% Qwen3.7 Plus is 238.7% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $0.90 | $0.40 / $1.60 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.7 Plus vs Ling 3.1 Flash: 38.7% less intelligence, 57.8% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 238.7% 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.
- Qwen3.7 Plus is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
Ling 3.1 FlashQwen3.7 PlusToday'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/qwen3-7-plus · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/ling-3-1-flash/qwen3-7-plus?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill