The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Claude Opus 4.8 and Ling 3.1 Flash are closely matched at 49.9 and 51.1 on the LLM Stats Score.

Anthropic · InclusionAI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Opus 4.8 and Ling 3.1 Flash are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 49.9 and 51.1.

In the 5 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Ling 3.1 Flash wins 5; 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 Opus 4.8

  • you want predictable pricing at $5.00/M input and $25.00/M output

Choose Ling 3.1 Flash

  • your work emphasizes agents — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 5 of 5 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Opus 4.8
Anthropic
Ling 3.1 Flash
InclusionAI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
49.9
#21
51.1
#14
Reasoning
49.6
#15
47.7
#25
Coding
39.7
#16
39.2
#17
Agents
34.0
#26
38.3
#11
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
0 of 5
5 of 5
Input price
$5.00 / M
— / M
Output price
$25.00 / M
— / M
Context window
1,000,000
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Claude Opus 4.8
Ling 3.1 Flash
Tool use
28.1#19
29.0#13
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

27 reported for Claude Opus 4.8 · 11 for Ling 3.1 Flash

5 shared

Claude Opus 4.8 outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Ling 3.1 Flash is better at 5 benchmarks (CyberGym, Finance Agent v2, FrontierSWE, HealthBench Professional, Terminal-Bench 4.0).

Ling 3.1 Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Wed Oct 07 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 Opus 4.8 specifies input context (1,000,000 tokens). Only Claude Opus 4.8 specifies output context (128,000 tokens).

Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.8
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Wed Oct 07 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Claude Opus 4.8 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.1 Flash does not.

Claude Opus 4.8 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude Opus 4.8

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Ling 3.1 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Opus 4.8 was released on 2026-05-28, while Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30.

Ling 3.1 Flash is 4 months newer than Claude Opus 4.8.

Claude Opus 4.8

May 28, 2026

4 months ago

Ling 3.1 Flash

Sep 30, 2026

1 weeks ago

4mo 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 Opus 4.8 and Ling 3.1 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Opus 4.8
✓ Preferred
Ling 3.1 Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Opus 4.8 vs Ling 3.1 Flash.

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Ling 3.1 Flash?

Claude Opus 4.8 and Ling 3.1 Flash are closely matched on the LLM Stats Score at 49.9 and 51.1. Claude Opus 4.8 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 Opus 4.8 compare to Ling 3.1 Flash in benchmarks?

Claude Opus 4.8 scores GPQA: 93.6%, DeepSearchQA: 93.1%, CharXiv-R: 89.9%, SWE-Bench Verified: 88.6%, ScreenSpot Pro: 87.9%. 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 Opus 4.8 and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Claude Opus 4.8 supports 1.0M 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 Opus 4.8 and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (49.9 vs 51.1), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs Unknown). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Opus 4.8 and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Claude Opus 4.8 is developed by Anthropic and Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by InclusionAI.

Related comparisons