Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B (Low)
Which is better for the money: Ling 3.1 Flash by InclusionAI or Qwen3.8 27B (Low) by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Clear winner
Verdict
Pick Ling 3.1 Flash
Qwen3.8 27B (Low) vs Ling 3.1 Flash: 36.3% less intelligence, 4.5% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 297.9% slower end-to-end.
| Metric | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.8 27B (Low) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 41.1 | 26.2 | −36.3% Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is 36.3% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,014.56 | $1,060.08 | +4.5% Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is 4.5% more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 13.66s | 54.35s | +297.9% Qwen3.8 27B (Low) is 297.9% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $0.90 | $0.50 / $3.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image, Video |
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 27B (Low) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Xhigh) scores 51.00 for $662.
Ling 3.1 FlashQwen3.8 27B (Low)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/qwen3-8-27b-low · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/ling-3-1-flash/qwen3-8-27b-low?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill