The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 5.2.

Anthropic · InclusionAI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 5.2, ranking #15 overall.

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

Choose Claude 3.5 Haiku

  • you want predictable pricing at $0.80/M input and $4.00/M output

Choose Ling 3.1 Flash

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

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude 3.5 Haiku
Anthropic
Ling 3.1 Flash
InclusionAI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
5.2
#314
51.0
#15
Reasoning
5.3
#310
47.5
#26
Coding
4.1
#225
38.8
#18
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$0.80 / M
— / M
Output price
$4.00 / M
— / M
Context window
200,000
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Claude 3.5 Haiku
Ling 3.1 Flash
Tool use
-4.5#204
29.0#16
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

9 reported for Claude 3.5 Haiku · 11 for Ling 3.1 Flash

No common benchmarks found

Claude 3.5 Haiku 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 Claude 3.5 Haiku specifies input context (200,000 tokens). Only Claude 3.5 Haiku specifies output context (200,000 tokens).

Anthropic
Claude 3.5 Haiku
Input200,000 tokens
Output200,000 tokens
InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Thu Oct 08 2026 • llm-stats.com

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude 3.5 Haiku was released on 2024-10-22, while Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30.

Ling 3.1 Flash is 24 months newer than Claude 3.5 Haiku.

Claude 3.5 Haiku

Oct 22, 2024

2.0 years ago

Ling 3.1 Flash

Sep 30, 2026

1 weeks ago

1.9yr 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 Claude 3.5 Haiku and Ling 3.1 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude 3.5 Haiku
✓ Preferred
Ling 3.1 Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Ling 3.1 Flash.

Which is better, Claude 3.5 Haiku or Ling 3.1 Flash?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 5.2. Claude 3.5 Haiku is made by Anthropic 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 Claude 3.5 Haiku compare to Ling 3.1 Flash in benchmarks?

Claude 3.5 Haiku scores HumanEval: 88.1%, MGSM: 85.6%, DROP: 83.1%, MATH: 69.4%, MMLU-Pro: 65.0%. 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 Claude 3.5 Haiku and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Claude 3.5 Haiku supports 200K 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 Claude 3.5 Haiku and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (5.2 vs 51.0), licensing (Proprietary vs Unknown). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude 3.5 Haiku and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Claude 3.5 Haiku is developed by Anthropic and Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by InclusionAI.

Related comparisons