Model Comparator

Compare up to four models using the same criteria.

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

Differences only

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

Model Comparator
Metrics	Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 InclusionAI	Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning) Anthropic
Intelligence	Best: 29.5	29.1
Math	—	62.7
Speed	—	56.1 t/s
TTFT	—	1.04 s
Input · $ / 1M tokens	Best: $0.30	$5×16.7 relative to the lowest price among the compared models
Output · $ / 1M tokens	Best: $0.90	$25×27.8 relative to the lowest price among the compared models
Context window	1M	1M
Reasoning	Yes	No
Open weights	Yes	No
Cost / task	$3.19	—

Intelligence

Ling 3.1 Flash 1019: Best: 29.5
Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning): 29.1

Math

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

Speed

Ling 3.1 Flash 1019: —
Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning): 56.1 t/s

TTFT

Ling 3.1 Flash 1019: —
Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning): 1.04 s

Input · $ / 1M tokens

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

Output · $ / 1M tokens

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

Context window

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

Reasoning

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

Open weights

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

Cost / task

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

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.

Ling 3.1 Flash 101929.5 · $0.45
Claude Opus 4.5 (Non-reasoning)29.1 · $10