The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Mythos 5.1 vs Ling 3.0 Flash

Claude Mythos 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 45.1 to 36.5. Ling 3.0 Flash is 222.2x cheaper per token.

Anthropic · InclusionAI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Mythos 5.1 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 45.1 to 36.5, ranking #31 overall.

On price, Ling 3.0 Flash is roughly 222.2x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Claude Mythos 5.1 also accepts a larger context window (1,000,000 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

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

Choose Claude Mythos 5.1

  • overall performance matters — it scores 45.1 and ranks #31 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,000,000 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose Ling 3.0 Flash

  • cost matters — it's about 222.2x cheaper per token

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Mythos 5.1
Anthropic
Ling 3.0 Flash
InclusionAI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
45.1
#31
36.5
#75
Reasoning
44.4
#34
35.6
#77
Coding
37.5
#17
25.5
#67
Agents
34.5
#21
19.7
#61
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$10.00 / M
$0.06 / M
Output price
$50.00 / M
$0.18 / M
Context window
1,000,000
131,072

Individual benchmarks

1 reported for Claude Mythos 5.1 · 19 for Ling 3.0 Flash

No common benchmarks found

Claude Mythos 5.1 and Ling 3.0 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

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Ling 3.0 Flash costs less

For input processing, Claude Mythos 5.1 ($10.00/1M tokens) is 166.7x more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash ($0.06/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Mythos 5.1 ($50.00/1M tokens) is 277.8x more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash ($0.18/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Mythos 5.1 is more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Tue Sep 08 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Mythos 5.1
Input tokens$10.00
Output tokens$50.00
Best providerAnthropic
InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash
Input tokens$0.06
Output tokens$0.18
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Claude Mythos 5.1 accepts 1,000,000 input tokens compared to Ling 3.0 Flash's 131,072 tokens. Ling 3.0 Flash can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while Claude Mythos 5.1 is limited to 128,000 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Mythos 5.1
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash
Input131,072 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Tue Sep 08 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Claude Mythos 5.1 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.0 Flash does not.

Claude Mythos 5.1 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude Mythos 5.1

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Ling 3.0 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Mythos 5.1 was released on 2026-09-01, while Ling 3.0 Flash was released on 2026-08-04.

Claude Mythos 5.1 is 1 month newer than Ling 3.0 Flash.

Claude Mythos 5.1

Sep 1, 2026

1 weeks ago

4w newer
Ling 3.0 Flash

Aug 4, 2026

1 months ago

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

Provider Availability

Claude Mythos 5.1 is available from Anthropic. Ling 3.0 Flash is available from DeepInfra.

Claude Mythos 5.1

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $10.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $50.00/1M

Ling 3.0 Flash

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.06/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.18/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Mythos 5.1 and Ling 3.0 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Mythos 5.1
✓ Preferred
Ling 3.0 Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Mythos 5.1 vs Ling 3.0 Flash.

Which is better, Claude Mythos 5.1 or Ling 3.0 Flash?

Claude Mythos 5.1 leads the LLM Stats Score 45.1 to 36.5. Claude Mythos 5.1 is made by Anthropic and Ling 3.0 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 Mythos 5.1 compare to Ling 3.0 Flash in benchmarks?

Claude Mythos 5.1 scores Terminal-Bench 4.0: 60.9%. Ling 3.0 Flash scores AIME 2026: 93.2%, Multi-IF: 87.7%, HMMT Feb 26: 87.0%, IMO-AnswerBench: 83.7%, LiveCodeBench v6: 82.8%.

Is Claude Mythos 5.1 cheaper than Ling 3.0 Flash?

Ling 3.0 Flash is 166.7x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Mythos 5.1 costs $10.00/M input and $50.00/M output via anthropic. Ling 3.0 Flash costs $0.06/M input and $0.18/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Mythos 5.1 and Ling 3.0 Flash?

Claude Mythos 5.1 supports 1.0M tokens and Ling 3.0 Flash supports 131K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude Mythos 5.1 and Ling 3.0 Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (45.1 vs 36.5), context window (1.0M vs 131K), input pricing ($10.00 vs $0.06/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs Unknown). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Mythos 5.1 and Ling 3.0 Flash?

Claude Mythos 5.1 is developed by Anthropic and Ling 3.0 Flash is developed by InclusionAI.

Related comparisons