The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 25.6.

Anthropic · InclusionAI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 25.6, ranking #15 overall.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Ling 3.1 Flash wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

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

Choose Claude Haiku 4.5

  • you want predictable pricing at $1.00/M input and $5.00/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 value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Haiku 4.5
Anthropic
Ling 3.1 Flash
InclusionAI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
25.6
#172
51.0
#15
Reasoning
25.2
#168
47.5
#26
Coding
19.4
#114
38.8
#18
Agents
13.2
#107
38.0
#12
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
0 of 1
1 of 1
Input price
$1.00 / M
— / M
Output price
$5.00 / M
— / M
Context window
200,000
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Claude Haiku 4.5
Ling 3.1 Flash
Tool use
15.2#99
29.0#16
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

12 reported for Claude Haiku 4.5 · 11 for Ling 3.1 Flash

1 shared

Claude Haiku 4.5 outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Ling 3.1 Flash is better at 1 benchmark (Finance Agent v2).

Ling 3.1 Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Fri Oct 09 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Claude Haiku 4.5 specifies input context (200,000 tokens). Only Claude Haiku 4.5 specifies output context (64,000 tokens).

Anthropic
Claude Haiku 4.5
Input200,000 tokens
Output64,000 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

Claude Haiku 4.5 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.1 Flash does not.

Claude Haiku 4.5 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude Haiku 4.5

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Ling 3.1 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Haiku 4.5 was released on 2025-10-15, while Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30.

Ling 3.1 Flash is 12 months newer than Claude Haiku 4.5.

Claude Haiku 4.5

Oct 15, 2025

11 months ago

Ling 3.1 Flash

Sep 30, 2026

1 weeks ago

11mo newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Claude Haiku 4.5 has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2025-02-01, while Ling 3.1 Flash's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Claude Haiku 4.5's training data extends to 2025-02-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without Ling 3.1 Flash's cutoff date.

Claude Haiku 4.5

Feb 2025

Ling 3.1 Flash

—

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Haiku 4.5 and Ling 3.1 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Haiku 4.5
✓ Preferred
Ling 3.1 Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Ling 3.1 Flash.

Which is better, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Ling 3.1 Flash?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 25.6. Claude Haiku 4.5 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 Haiku 4.5 compare to Ling 3.1 Flash in benchmarks?

Claude Haiku 4.5 scores Tau2 Retail: 83.2%, MMMLU: 83.0%, Tau2 Telecom: 83.0%, AIME 2025: 80.7%, SWE-Bench Verified: 73.3%. 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 Haiku 4.5 and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Claude Haiku 4.5 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 Haiku 4.5 and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (25.6 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 Haiku 4.5 and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Claude Haiku 4.5 is developed by Anthropic and Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by InclusionAI.

Related comparisons