The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

ChatGPT-4o Latest vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 24.9.

OpenAI · InclusionAI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 24.9, ranking #15 overall.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose ChatGPT-4o Latest

  • you want predictable pricing at $2.50/M input and $10.00/M output

Choose Ling 3.1 Flash

  • overall performance matters — it scores 51.0 and ranks #15 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

ChatGPT-4o Latest
OpenAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
InclusionAI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
24.9
#176
51.0
#15
Reasoning
24.0
#175
47.5
#26
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$2.50 / M
— / M
Output price
$10.00 / M
— / M
Context window
128,000
—

Individual benchmarks

1 reported for ChatGPT-4o Latest · 11 for Ling 3.1 Flash

No common benchmarks found

ChatGPT-4o Latest and Ling 3.1 Flashdon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only ChatGPT-4o Latest specifies input context (128,000 tokens). Only ChatGPT-4o Latest specifies output context (16,384 tokens).

OpenAI
ChatGPT-4o Latest
Input128,000 tokens
Output16,384 tokens
InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Fri Oct 09 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

ChatGPT-4o Latest supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.1 Flash does not.

ChatGPT-4o Latest can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

ChatGPT-4o Latest

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Ling 3.1 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

ChatGPT-4o Latest was released on 2024-05-13, while Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30.

Ling 3.1 Flash is 29 months newer than ChatGPT-4o Latest.

ChatGPT-4o Latest

May 13, 2024

2.4 years ago

Ling 3.1 Flash

Sep 30, 2026

1 weeks ago

2.4yr newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against ChatGPT-4o Latest and Ling 3.1 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

ChatGPT-4o Latest
✓ Preferred
Ling 3.1 Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about ChatGPT-4o Latest vs Ling 3.1 Flash.

Which is better, ChatGPT-4o Latest or Ling 3.1 Flash?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 24.9. ChatGPT-4o Latest is made by OpenAI and Ling 3.1 Flash is made by InclusionAI. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does ChatGPT-4o Latest compare to Ling 3.1 Flash in benchmarks?

ChatGPT-4o Latest scores GPQA: 84.0%. Ling 3.1 Flash scores CyberGym: 87.9%, DRACO: 85.5%, FrontierSWE: 75.2%, Multi-Challenge: 69.8%, SkillsBench: 68.7%.

What are the context window sizes for ChatGPT-4o Latest and Ling 3.1 Flash?

ChatGPT-4o Latest supports 128K tokens and Ling 3.1 Flash supports an unknown number of tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between ChatGPT-4o Latest and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (24.9 vs 51.0), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs Unknown). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes ChatGPT-4o Latest and Ling 3.1 Flash?

ChatGPT-4o Latest is developed by OpenAI and Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by InclusionAI.

Related comparisons