Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
Which is better for the money: Ling 3.1 Flash by InclusionAI or Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Clear winner
Verdict
Pick Ling 3.1 Flash
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B vs Ling 3.1 Flash: 2.9% less intelligence, 159.4% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 380.7% slower end-to-end.
| Metric | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 41.1 | 39.9 | −2.9% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 2.9% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,014.56 | $2,632.05 | +159.4% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 2.6× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 13.61s | 65.43s | +380.7% Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is 380.7% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $0.90 | $2.00 / $6.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
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.
- Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) scores 53.60 for $2172.
Ling 3.1 FlashQwen3.8 2.4T A95BToday'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/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/ling-3-1-flash/qwen3-8-2-4t-a95b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill