- Rank
- #105
- Total Output Tokens
- 687,692
- Response Time (avg)
- 87.39s
- Total Cost
- $0.000
Ling 3.1 Flash (high) vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B (high)
The average score is effectively tied at 7.9 vs 7.9. Ling 3.1 Flash (high) has the lower benchmark cost at $0.000 vs $2.949. Ling 3.1 Flash (high) is faster at 87.39s vs 120.88s, with pass rates of 69.6% vs 75.4%.
Compared models
- Rank
- #103
- Total Output Tokens
- 468,439
- Response Time (avg)
- 120.88s
- Total Cost
- $2.949
Recommended model
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B (high)
It has the strongest score in this comparison (7.9) and the best overall balance of cost and response time across all 2 models.
Detailed comparison
| Metric | Ling 3.1 Flash Ling 3.1 Flash high | Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B high |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 7.9 | 7.9 |
| Rank | #105 | #103 |
| Reliability | 9.8 | 9.6 |
| Consistency | 9.3 | 8.4 |
| Attempts | 69/69 | 69/69 |
| Tests Correct | ||
| Attempt pass rate | 69.6% | 75.4% |
| Flaky tests | 2 | 4 |
| Total Runs | 69 | 69 |
| Cost per result | 0.000 | 18.696 |
| Total Cost | $0.000 | $2.949 |
| Input Price | $0.000 / 1M | $2.000 / 1M |
| Output Price | $0.000 / 1M | $6.000 / 1M |
| Cache Read Price | N/A | $0.250 / 1M |
| Cache Write Price | N/A | N/A |
| Total Input Tokens | 324,691 | 295,642 |
| Output Tokens | 181,251 | 115,041 |
| Reasoning Tokens | 506,441 | 353,398 |
| Response Time (avg) | 87.39s | 120.88s |
| Response Time (max) | 665.85s | 532.28s |
| Response Time (total) | 2010.08s | 2780.16s |
| Parameters | 560B total (25B active) | 2.4T total (95B active) |
| Availability | Closed | Weights available |
Cache prices apply to input tokens. Reads reuse cached prompts; writes store them and can cost extra. Output tokens use the output price.
Model generation showcase
Hamster playing table tennis
Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.
#105 Ling 3.1 Flash
high- Cost
- $0.000
- Time
- 181.1s
- Tokens
- 21,073 tok
#103 Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B
high
Reached the allocated time limit (600 seconds) without receiving showcase output.
- Cost
- $0.000
- Time
- 600.0s
- Tokens
- 0 tok
Top Models by Score
Score vs Total Cost
Response Time (avg)
Score vs Response Time (avg)
Total Output Tokens
Score vs Total Output Tokens
Category Breakdown
| Agentic | Score | Consistency | Attempt pass rate | Flaky tests | Tests Correct | Response Time (avg) | Input Tokens | Output Tokens | Reasoning Tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ling 3.1 Flash | 10.0 | 10.0 | 100.0% | 0 | 87.42s | 204,838 | 9,381 | 8,546 | |
| Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | 10.0 | 10.0 | 100.0% | 0 | 127.11s | 186,711 | 2,240 | 10,171 |
| Anti-AI Tricks | Score | Consistency | Attempt pass rate | Flaky tests | Tests Correct | Response Time (avg) | Input Tokens | Output Tokens | Reasoning Tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ling 3.1 Flash | 10.0 | 10.0 | 100.0% | 0 | 4.44s | 750 | 1,219 | 3,505 | |
| Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | 10.0 | 10.0 | 100.0% | 0 | 24.22s | 1,128 | 305 | 4,864 |
| Coding | Score | Consistency | Attempt pass rate | Flaky tests | Tests Correct | Response Time (avg) | Input Tokens | Output Tokens | Reasoning Tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ling 3.1 Flash | 8.2 | 7.2 | 88.9% | 1 | 83.41s | 8,298 | 17,470 | 54,626 | |
| Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | 5.9 | 6.3 | 55.6% | 1 | 160.52s | 6,399 | 3,310 | 48,078 |
| Combined | Score | Consistency | Attempt pass rate | Flaky tests | Tests Correct | Response Time (avg) | Input Tokens | Output Tokens | Reasoning Tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ling 3.1 Flash | 6.3 | 10.0 | 50.0% | 0 | 351.19s | 90,556 | 44,145 | 153,951 | |
| Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | 6.9 | 5.9 | 66.7% | 1 | 266.12s | 81,205 | 7,791 | 41,921 |
| Data parsing and extraction | Score | Consistency | Attempt pass rate | Flaky tests | Tests Correct | Response Time (avg) | Input Tokens | Output Tokens | Reasoning Tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ling 3.1 Flash | 10.0 | 10.0 | 100.0% | 0 | 17.38s | 8,016 | 1,517 | 3,710 | |
| Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | 10.0 | 10.0 | 100.0% | 0 | 13.67s | 7,928 | 550 | 2,307 |
| Domain specific | Score | Consistency | Attempt pass rate | Flaky tests | Tests Correct | Response Time (avg) | Input Tokens | Output Tokens | Reasoning Tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ling 3.1 Flash | 3.0 | 10.0 | 0.0% | 0 | 222.88s | 837 | 94,527 | 212,965 | |
| Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | 4.1 | 6.5 | 22.2% | 1 | 301.08s | 964 | 11,279 | 139,028 |
| General Intelligence | Score | Consistency | Attempt pass rate | Flaky tests | Tests Correct | Response Time (avg) | Input Tokens | Output Tokens | Reasoning Tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ling 3.1 Flash | 3.9 | 9.4 | 0.0% | 0 | 7.82s | 546 | 38 | 2,140 | |
| Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | 6.1 | 3.1 | 66.7% | 1 | 11.38s | 630 | 2,020 | 2,165 |
| Instructions following | Score | Consistency | Attempt pass rate | Flaky tests | Tests Correct | Response Time (avg) | Input Tokens | Output Tokens | Reasoning Tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ling 3.1 Flash | 10.0 | 10.0 | 100.0% | 0 | 4.31s | 744 | 349 | 1,746 | |
| Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | 9.8 | 10.0 | 100.0% | 0 | 11.45s | 927 | 245 | 1,727 |
| Puzzle Solving | Score | Consistency | Attempt pass rate | Flaky tests | Tests Correct | Response Time (avg) | Input Tokens | Output Tokens | Reasoning Tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ling 3.1 Flash | 10.0 | 10.0 | 100.0% | 0 | 37.46s | 747 | 5,017 | 29,548 | |
| Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | 10.0 | 10.0 | 100.0% | 0 | 65.54s | 989 | 698 | 15,073 |
| Tool Calling | Score | Consistency | Attempt pass rate | Flaky tests | Tests Correct | Response Time (avg) | Input Tokens | Output Tokens | Reasoning Tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ling 3.1 Flash | 2.8 | 2.1 | 33.3% | 1 | 38.25s | 9,131 | 2,943 | 9,161 | |
| Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | 10.0 | 10.0 | 100.0% | 0 | 32.93s | 8,481 | 302 | 656 |
| Trivia | Score | Consistency | Attempt pass rate | Flaky tests | Tests Correct | Response Time (avg) | Input Tokens | Output Tokens | Reasoning Tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ling 3.1 Flash | 3.0 | 10.0 | 0.0% | 0 | 81.83s | 228 | 4,645 | 26,543 | |
| Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B | 3.0 | 10.0 | 0.0% | 0 | 347.95s | 280 | 86,301 | 87,408 |
Quick Compare
Switch Comparison Pair
Gemini 3.5 FlashmediumvsQwen3.8 2.4T A95BhighLing 3.1 FlashhighvsMiMo-V2.6-FlashmediumQwen3.8 2.4T A95BhighvsMiMo-V2.6-FlashmediumLing 3.1 FlashhighvsGrok 4.5mediumGemini 3.5 FlashmediumvsLing 3.1 FlashhighQwen3.8 2.4T A95BhighvsGrok 4.5mediumLing 3.1 FlashhighvsStep 3.7 FlashmediumLing 3.1 FlashhighvsGrok 4.6mediumGPT-5.4 MinimediumvsQwen3.8 2.4T A95BhighQwen3.8 2.4T A95BhighvsStep 3.7 FlashmediumLing 3.1 FlashhighvsQwen3.7 MaxnoneQwen3.8 2.4T A95BhighvsGrok 4.6medium