The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash vs Ling 3.0 Flash

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.8 to 36.4. Ling 3.0 Flash is 3.7x cheaper per token.

DeepSeek · InclusionAI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.8 to 36.4, ranking #13 overall.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, Ling 3.0 Flash is roughly 3.7x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash also accepts a larger context window (1,040,000 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 DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

  • overall performance matters — it scores 51.8 and ranks #13 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,040,000 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

Choose Ling 3.0 Flash

  • cost matters — it's about 3.7x cheaper per token

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
DeepSeek
Ling 3.0 Flash
InclusionAI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
51.8
#13
36.4
#77
Reasoning
48.9
#18
35.6
#79
Coding
44.2
#5
25.3
#69
Agents
41.1
#4
19.5
#63
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 1
0 of 1
Input price
$0.22 / M
$0.06 / M
Output price
$0.66 / M
$0.18 / M
Context window
1,040,000
131,072

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

2 shared
Index
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
Ling 3.0 Flash
Math
35.2#43
29.8#80
Tool use
34.8#2
17.7#72
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

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

1 shared

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash outperforms in 1 benchmarks (Terminal-Bench 2.1), while Ling 3.0 Flash is better at 0 benchmarks.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Tue Sep 15 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, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash ($0.22/1M tokens) is 3.7x more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash ($0.06/1M tokens).

For output processing, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash ($0.66/1M tokens) is 3.7x more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash ($0.18/1M tokens).

In conclusion, DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Tue Sep 15 2026 • llm-stats.com
DeepSeek
DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash
Input tokens$0.22
Output tokens$0.66
Best providerFireworks
InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash
Input tokens$0.06
Output tokens$0.18
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

639.2B diff

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

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

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash accepts 1,040,000 input tokens compared to Ling 3.0 Flash's 131,072 tokens. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash 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
Input1,040,000 tokens
Output393,216 tokens
InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash
Input131,072 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Tue Sep 15 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

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

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

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Ling 3.0 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash was released on 2026-09-10, while Ling 3.0 Flash was released on 2026-08-04.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash is 1 month newer than Ling 3.0 Flash.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

Sep 10, 2026

5 days ago

1mo newer
Ling 3.0 Flash

Aug 4, 2026

1 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 is available from Fireworks, DeepInfra, DeepSeek, Novita. Ling 3.0 Flash is available from DeepInfra.

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash

fireworks logo
Fireworks
Input Price:Input: $0.22/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.66/1M
deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.30/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M
deepseek logo
DeepSeek
Input Price:Input: $0.30/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M
novita logo
Novita
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?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash and Ling 3.0 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

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

FAQ

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

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

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.8 to 36.4. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash 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 compare to Ling 3.0 Flash in benchmarks?

DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash scores CodeForces: 100.0%, GPQA: 90.9%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 90.6%, BabyVision: 89.6%, CyberGym: 88.1%. 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 cheaper than Ling 3.0 Flash?

Ling 3.0 Flash is 3.7x cheaper for input tokens. DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash costs $0.22/M input and $0.66/M output via fireworks. 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 and Ling 3.0 Flash?

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

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (51.8 vs 36.4), context window (1.0M vs 131K), input pricing ($0.22 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 and Ling 3.0 Flash?

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

Related comparisons