The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 vs Ling 3.0 Flash

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 leads the LLM Stats Score 51.2 to 35.9. Ling 3.0 Flash is 5.8x cheaper per token.

DeepSeek · InclusionAI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.2 to 35.9, ranking #15 overall.

On price, Ling 3.0 Flash is roughly 5.8x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 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 DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

  • overall performance matters — it scores 51.2 and ranks #15 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2026
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

Choose Ling 3.0 Flash

  • cost matters — it's about 5.8x cheaper per token

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
DeepSeek
Ling 3.0 Flash
InclusionAI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
51.2
#15
35.9
#100
Reasoning
48.8
#18
35.2
#99
Coding
39.3
#14
24.4
#90
Agents
38.7
#8
19.0
#88
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$0.30 / M
$0.06 / M
Output price
$1.20 / M
$0.18 / M
Context window
1,048,576
131,072

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

2 shared
Index
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Ling 3.0 Flash
Math
31.8#69
29.7#88
Tool use
31.3#6
16.3#96
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

11 reported for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 · 19 for Ling 3.0 Flash

No common benchmarks found

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and Ling 3.0 Flashdon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

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, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 ($0.30/1M tokens) is 5.0x more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash ($0.06/1M tokens).

For output processing, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 ($1.20/1M tokens) is 6.7x more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash ($0.18/1M tokens).

In conclusion, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 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 23 2026 • llm-stats.com
DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Input tokens$0.30
Output tokens$1.20
Best providerDeepSeek
InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash
Input tokens$0.06
Output tokens$0.18
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

639.2B diff

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 has 639.2B more parameters than Ling 3.0 Flash, making it 515.5% larger.

DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
763.2Bparameters
InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash
124.0Bparameters
763.2B
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
124.0B
Ling 3.0 Flash

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Ling 3.0 Flash's 131,072 tokens. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 can generate longer responses up to 393,216 tokens, while Ling 3.0 Flash is limited to 131,072 tokens.

DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output393,216 tokens
InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash
Input131,072 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Fri Oct 23 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.0 Flash does not.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Ling 3.0 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 was released on 2026-10-17, while Ling 3.0 Flash was released on 2026-08-04.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is 2 months newer than Ling 3.0 Flash.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

Oct 17, 2026

2 days ago

2mo newer
Ling 3.0 Flash

Aug 4, 2026

2 months ago

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

Provider Availability

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is available from DeepSeek. Ling 3.0 Flash is available from DeepInfra.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017

deepseek logo
DeepSeek
Input Price:Input: $0.30/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M

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 DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and Ling 3.0 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017
✓ Preferred
Ling 3.0 Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 vs Ling 3.0 Flash.

Which is better, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 or Ling 3.0 Flash?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 leads the LLM Stats Score 51.2 to 35.9. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is made by DeepSeek 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 DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 compare to Ling 3.0 Flash in benchmarks?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 scores BabyVision: 92.5%, Chartography: 83.0%, DeepSWE 1.1: 77.0%, NL2Repo: 68.2%, AutomationBench: 60.5%. 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 DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 cheaper than Ling 3.0 Flash?

Ling 3.0 Flash is 5.0x cheaper for input tokens. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 costs $0.30/M input and $1.20/M output via deepseek. Ling 3.0 Flash costs $0.06/M input and $0.18/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and Ling 3.0 Flash?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 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 DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and Ling 3.0 Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (51.2 vs 35.9), context window (1.0M vs 131K), input pricing ($0.30 vs $0.06/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (MIT vs Unknown). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 and Ling 3.0 Flash?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017 is developed by DeepSeek and Ling 3.0 Flash is developed by InclusionAI.

Related comparisons