Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Which is better for the money: Ling 3.1 Flash by InclusionAI or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next 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 1.3 points higher (41.1 vs 39.8) but costs 2.8× as much to run the benchmark ($1015 vs $363; premium vs mid-range cost classes). Pick Ling 3.1 Flash when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Qwen3.8-Flash-Next.
| Metric | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 41.1 | 39.8 | −3.2% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 3.2% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,014.56 | $362.72 | −64.2% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 64.2% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 13.56s | 50.52s | +272.6% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 272.6% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $0.90 | $0.15 / $0.47 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs Ling 3.1 Flash: 3.2% less intelligence, 64.2% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 272.6% 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.
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
Ling 3.1 FlashQwen3.8-Flash-NextToday'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-flash-next · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/ling-3-1-flash/qwen3-8-flash-next?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill