The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Claude Opus 5.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 60.5 to 51.1.

Anthropic · InclusionAI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Opus 5.5 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 60.5 to 51.1, ranking #1 overall.

In the 4 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Opus 5.5 wins 3; 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 5.5

  • overall performance matters — it scores 60.5 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 3 of 4 exact shared results

Choose Ling 3.1 Flash

  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Opus 5.5
Anthropic
Ling 3.1 Flash
InclusionAI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
60.5
#1
51.1
#14
Reasoning
59.1
#1
47.7
#25
Coding
51.3
#1
39.2
#17
Agents
45.5
#1
38.3
#11
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
3 of 4
1 of 4
Input price
$4.00 / M
— / M
Output price
$20.00 / M
— / M
Context window
1,000,000
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Claude Opus 5.5
Ling 3.1 Flash
Tool use
32.4#3
29.0#13
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

31 reported for Claude Opus 5.5 · 11 for Ling 3.1 Flash

4 shared

Claude Opus 5.5 outperforms in 3 benchmarks (GDPval-AA 2.1, HealthBench Professional, Terminal-Bench 4.0), while Ling 3.1 Flash is better at 1 benchmark (AutomationBench).

Claude Opus 5.5 shows notably better performance in the majority of 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 5.5 specifies input context (1,000,000 tokens). Only Claude Opus 5.5 specifies output context (128,000 tokens).

Anthropic
Claude Opus 5.5
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 5.5 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.1 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

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Ling 3.1 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Opus 5.5 was released on 2026-09-22, while Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30.

Ling 3.1 Flash is 0 month newer than Claude Opus 5.5.

Claude Opus 5.5

Sep 22, 2026

2 weeks ago

Ling 3.1 Flash

Sep 30, 2026

1 weeks ago

1w newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Claude Opus 5.5 has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-06-01, while Ling 3.1 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 3.1 Flash's cutoff date.

Claude Opus 5.5

Jun 2026

Ling 3.1 Flash

—

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Opus 5.5 and Ling 3.1 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Opus 5.5
✓ Preferred
Ling 3.1 Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Opus 5.5 vs Ling 3.1 Flash.

Which is better, Claude Opus 5.5 or Ling 3.1 Flash?

Claude Opus 5.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 60.5 to 51.1. Claude Opus 5.5 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 Opus 5.5 compare to Ling 3.1 Flash in benchmarks?

Claude Opus 5.5 scores BenchCAD (with Python tool): 96.2%, Global-MMLU: 94.3%, SWE-bench Multilingual: 93.9%, MILU: 93.1%, ArXivMath: 91.2%. 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 5.5 and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Claude Opus 5.5 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 5.5 and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (60.5 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 5.5 and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Claude Opus 5.5 is developed by Anthropic and Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by InclusionAI.

Related comparisons