The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude 3 Opus vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 9.9.

Anthropic · InclusionAI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 9.9, ranking #15 overall.

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

Choose Claude 3 Opus

  • you want predictable pricing at $15.00/M input and $75.00/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 Opus
Anthropic
Ling 3.1 Flash
InclusionAI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
9.9
#283
51.0
#15
Reasoning
9.8
#277
47.5
#26
Coding
5.1
#216
38.8
#18
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$15.00 / M
— / M
Output price
$75.00 / M
— / M
Context window
200,000
—

Individual benchmarks

11 reported for Claude 3 Opus · 11 for Ling 3.1 Flash

No common benchmarks found

Claude 3 Opus 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 Opus specifies input context (200,000 tokens). Only Claude 3 Opus specifies output context (200,000 tokens).

Anthropic
Claude 3 Opus
Input200,000 tokens
Output200,000 tokens
InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Thu Oct 08 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Claude 3 Opus supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.1 Flash does not.

Claude 3 Opus can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude 3 Opus

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Ling 3.1 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude 3 Opus was released on 2024-02-29, while Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30.

Ling 3.1 Flash is 31 months newer than Claude 3 Opus.

Claude 3 Opus

Feb 29, 2024

2.6 years ago

Ling 3.1 Flash

Sep 30, 2026

1 weeks ago

2.6yr 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 Opus and Ling 3.1 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude 3 Opus
✓ Preferred
Ling 3.1 Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude 3 Opus vs Ling 3.1 Flash.

Which is better, Claude 3 Opus or Ling 3.1 Flash?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 9.9. Claude 3 Opus 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 Opus compare to Ling 3.1 Flash in benchmarks?

Claude 3 Opus scores ARC-C: 96.4%, HellaSwag: 95.4%, GSM8k: 95.0%, MGSM: 90.7%, BIG-Bench Hard: 86.8%. 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 Opus and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Claude 3 Opus 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 Opus and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (9.9 vs 51.0), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs Unknown). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude 3 Opus and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Claude 3 Opus is developed by Anthropic and Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by InclusionAI.

Related comparisons