The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Ling 3.0 Flash

Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 58.0 to 36.2. Ling 3.0 Flash is 44.4x cheaper per token.

Anthropic · InclusionAI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 58.0 to 36.2, ranking #3 overall.

In the 2 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Sonnet 5.5 wins 2; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, Ling 3.0 Flash is roughly 44.4x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 5.5

  • overall performance matters — it scores 58.0 and ranks #3 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 44.4x cheaper per token

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude Sonnet 5.5
Anthropic
Ling 3.0 Flash
InclusionAI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
58.0
#3
36.2
#86
Reasoning
56.6
#3
35.4
#89
Coding
48.8
#2
24.9
#77
Agents
42.3
#3
19.2
#72
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
2 of 2
0 of 2
Input price
$2.00 / M
$0.06 / M
Output price
$10.00 / M
$0.18 / M
Context window
1,000,000
131,072

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

2 shared
Index
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Ling 3.0 Flash
Math
36.9#34
29.8#82
Tool use
34.0#2
16.0#88
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

47 reported for Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 19 for Ling 3.0 Flash

2 shared

Claude Sonnet 5.5 outperforms in 2 benchmarks (SWE-bench Multilingual, SWE-Bench Pro), while Ling 3.0 Flash is better at 0 benchmarks.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Fri Oct 02 2026 • llm-stats.com

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 Sonnet 5.5 ($2.00/1M tokens) is 33.3x more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash ($0.06/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Sonnet 5.5 ($10.00/1M tokens) is 55.6x more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash ($0.18/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Sonnet 5.5 is more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Fri Oct 02 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Input tokens$2.00
Output tokens$10.00
Best providerAnthropic
InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash
Input tokens$0.06
Output tokens$0.18
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 5.5 is limited to 128,000 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash
Input131,072 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Fri Oct 02 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Claude Sonnet 5.5 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.0 Flash does not.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Ling 3.0 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Sonnet 5.5 was released on 2026-09-28, while Ling 3.0 Flash was released on 2026-08-04.

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is 2 months newer than Ling 3.0 Flash.

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Sep 28, 2026

4 days ago

1mo newer
Ling 3.0 Flash

Aug 4, 2026

1 months ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 5.5's training data extends to 2026-06-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without Ling 3.0 Flash's cutoff date.

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Jun 2026

Ling 3.0 Flash

—

Provider Availability

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is available from Anthropic. Ling 3.0 Flash is available from DeepInfra.

Claude Sonnet 5.5

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $2.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $10.00/1M

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?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Ling 3.0 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude Sonnet 5.5
✓ Preferred
Ling 3.0 Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Ling 3.0 Flash.

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Ling 3.0 Flash?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 58.0 to 36.2. Claude Sonnet 5.5 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 Sonnet 5.5 compare to Ling 3.0 Flash in benchmarks?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 scores BenchCAD (with Python tool): 96.3%, ArXivMath (with tools): 95.2%, Global-MMLU: 92.1%, MILU: 91.6%, SWE-bench Multilingual: 90.3%. 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 Sonnet 5.5 cheaper than Ling 3.0 Flash?

Ling 3.0 Flash is 33.3x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Sonnet 5.5 costs $2.00/M input and $10.00/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 Sonnet 5.5 and Ling 3.0 Flash?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 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 Sonnet 5.5 and Ling 3.0 Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (58.0 vs 36.2), context window (1.0M vs 131K), input pricing ($2.00 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 Sonnet 5.5 and Ling 3.0 Flash?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 is developed by Anthropic and Ling 3.0 Flash is developed by InclusionAI.

Related comparisons