Model Comparator

Compare up to four models using the same criteria.

Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning)
Anthropic
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019
InclusionAI

Differences only

✓ Best published value among measured models. — Data unavailable. These metrics do not establish an overall ranking.

Model Comparator
Metrics	Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning) Anthropic	Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 InclusionAI
Intelligence	29.1	Best: 29.6
Math	62.7	—
Speed	46.8 t/s	—
TTFT	1.11 s	—
Input · $ / 1M tokens	$5×16.7 relative to the lowest price among the compared models	Best: $0.30
Output · $ / 1M tokens	$25×27.8 relative to the lowest price among the compared models	Best: $0.90
Context window	1M	1M
Reasoning	No	Yes
Open weights	No	Yes
Cost / task	—	$3.19

Intelligence

Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning): 29.1
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019: Best: 29.6

Math

Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning): 62.7
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019: —

Speed

Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning): 46.8 t/s
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019: —

TTFT

Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning): 1.11 s
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019: —

Input · $ / 1M tokens

Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning): $5×16.7 relative to the lowest price among the compared models
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019: Best: $0.30

Output · $ / 1M tokens

Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning): $25×27.8 relative to the lowest price among the compared models
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019: Best: $0.90

Context window

Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning): 1M
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019: 1M

Reasoning

Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning): No
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019: Yes

Open weights

Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning): No
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019: Yes

Cost / task

Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning): —
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019: $3.19

Each reasoning level remains a separate configuration.

Score and cost

Each line joins the reasoning levels of a compared model; the large point marks the configuration in the table. The top-right corner holds the best score for the lowest cost. Select another point to compare that level.

Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning)29.1 · $10
Ling 3.1 Flash 101929.6 · $0.45