The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 58.5 to 51.1.

Anthropic · InclusionAI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 58.5 to 51.1, ranking #2 overall.

In the 4 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 5.5

  • overall performance matters — it scores 58.5 and ranks #2 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 Sonnet 5.5
Anthropic
Ling 3.1 Flash
InclusionAI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
58.5
#2
51.1
#14
Reasoning
57.1
#2
47.7
#25
Coding
48.9
#2
39.2
#17
Agents
42.7
#3
38.3
#11
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
3 of 4
1 of 4
Input price
$2.00 / M
— / M
Output price
$10.00 / M
— / M
Context window
1,000,000
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Ling 3.1 Flash
Tool use
34.1#2
29.0#13
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

47 reported for Claude Sonnet 5.5 · 11 for Ling 3.1 Flash

4 shared

Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 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 Sonnet 5.5 specifies input context (1,000,000 tokens). Only Claude Sonnet 5.5 specifies output context (128,000 tokens).

Anthropic
Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 5.5 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.1 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 3.1 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Sonnet 5.5 was released on 2026-09-28, while Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30.

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

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Sep 28, 2026

1 weeks ago

Ling 3.1 Flash

Sep 30, 2026

1 weeks ago

2d newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 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 Sonnet 5.5

Jun 2026

Ling 3.1 Flash

—

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

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

Claude Sonnet 5.5
✓ Preferred
Ling 3.1 Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Ling 3.1 Flash.

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

Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 58.5 to 51.1. Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 5.5 compare to Ling 3.1 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 3.1 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 Sonnet 5.5 and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 5.5 and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (58.5 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 Sonnet 5.5 and Ling 3.1 Flash?

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

Related comparisons