Claude Opus 5.5 vs Ling 3.0 Flash
Claude Opus 5.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 60.3 to 36.2. Ling 3.0 Flash is 88.9x cheaper per token.
Anthropic · InclusionAI · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Claude Opus 5.5 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 60.3 to 36.2, ranking #1 overall.
In the 2 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Opus 5.5 wins 2; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Ling 3.0 Flash is roughly 88.9x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Claude Opus 5.5 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 Opus 5.5
- overall performance matters — it scores 60.3 and ranks #1 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 2 of 2 exact shared results
- 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 88.9x cheaper per token
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
31 reported for Claude Opus 5.5 · 19 for Ling 3.0 Flash
Claude Opus 5.5 outperforms in 2 benchmarks (SWE-bench Multilingual, SWE-Bench Pro), while Ling 3.0 Flash is better at 0 benchmarks.
Claude Opus 5.5 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Claude Opus 5.5 ($4.00/1M tokens) is 66.7x more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash ($0.06/1M tokens).
For output processing, Claude Opus 5.5 ($20.00/1M tokens) is 111.1x more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash ($0.18/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Claude Opus 5.5 is more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Claude Opus 5.5 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 Opus 5.5 is limited to 128,000 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Claude Opus 5.5 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.0 Flash does not.
Claude Opus 5.5 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
Claude Opus 5.5
Ling 3.0 Flash
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Claude Opus 5.5 was released on 2026-09-22, while Ling 3.0 Flash was released on 2026-08-04.
Claude Opus 5.5 is 2 months newer than Ling 3.0 Flash.
Sep 22, 2026
1 weeks ago
1mo newerAug 4, 2026
1 months ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Claude Opus 5.5 has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-06-01, while Ling 3.0 Flash's cutoff date is not specified.
We can confirm Claude Opus 5.5's training data extends to 2026-06-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without Ling 3.0 Flash's cutoff date.
Jun 2026
—
Provider Availability
Claude Opus 5.5 is available from Anthropic. Ling 3.0 Flash is available from DeepInfra.
Claude Opus 5.5
Ling 3.0 Flash
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Claude Opus 5.5 and Ling 3.0 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Claude Opus 5.5 vs Ling 3.0 Flash.