Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3 Coder Next
Which is better for the money: Ling 3.1 Flash by InclusionAI or Qwen3 Coder Next by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Ling 3.1 Flash scores 31.9 points higher (41.1 vs 9.2) but costs 2.5× as much to run the benchmark ($1015 vs $405; premium vs mid-range cost classes). Pick Ling 3.1 Flash when the extra intelligence is worth the premium, otherwise Qwen3 Coder Next.
| Metric | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3 Coder Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 41.1 | 9.2 | −77.6% Qwen3 Coder Next is 77.6% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $1,014.56 | $405.10 | −60.1% Qwen3 Coder Next is 60.1% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 13.66s | 6.44s | −52.9% Qwen3 Coder Next is 52.9% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.30 / $0.90 | $0.31 / $1.00 | |
| Input modalities | Text | Text |
Qwen3 Coder Next vs Ling 3.1 Flash: 77.6% less intelligence, 60.1% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 52.9% faster 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 Coder 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 Coder 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-coder-next · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/ling-3-1-flash/qwen3-coder-next?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill