The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

DeepSeek VL2 Tiny vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to -4.7.

DeepSeek · InclusionAI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.0 to -4.7, ranking #15 overall.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose DeepSeek VL2 Tiny

  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

Choose Ling 3.1 Flash

  • overall performance matters — it scores 51.0 and ranks #15 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

DeepSeek VL2 Tiny
DeepSeek
Ling 3.1 Flash
InclusionAI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
-4.7
#367
51.0
#15
Reasoning
-12.7
#378
47.5
#26
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
— / M
— / M
Output price
— / M
— / M
Context window
—
—

Individual benchmarks

14 reported for DeepSeek VL2 Tiny · 11 for Ling 3.1 Flash

No common benchmarks found

DeepSeek VL2 Tiny and Ling 3.1 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

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

557.0B diff

Ling 3.1 Flash has 557.0B more parameters than DeepSeek VL2 Tiny, making it 18566.7% larger.

DeepSeek
DeepSeek VL2 Tiny
3.0Bparameters
InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
560.0Bparameters
3.0B
DeepSeek VL2 Tiny
560.0B
Ling 3.1 Flash

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

DeepSeek VL2 Tiny supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.1 Flash does not.

DeepSeek VL2 Tiny can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

DeepSeek VL2 Tiny

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Ling 3.1 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

DeepSeek VL2 Tiny was released on 2024-12-13, while Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30.

Ling 3.1 Flash is 22 months newer than DeepSeek VL2 Tiny.

DeepSeek VL2 Tiny

Dec 13, 2024

1.8 years ago

Ling 3.1 Flash

Sep 30, 2026

1 weeks ago

1.8yr newer

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

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against DeepSeek VL2 Tiny and Ling 3.1 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

DeepSeek VL2 Tiny
✓ Preferred
Ling 3.1 Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about DeepSeek VL2 Tiny vs Ling 3.1 Flash.

Which is better, DeepSeek VL2 Tiny or Ling 3.1 Flash?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to -4.7. DeepSeek VL2 Tiny is made by DeepSeek 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 DeepSeek VL2 Tiny compare to Ling 3.1 Flash in benchmarks?

DeepSeek VL2 Tiny scores DocVQA: 88.9%, ChartQA: 81.0%, OCRBench: 80.9%, TextVQA: 80.7%, AI2D: 71.6%. Ling 3.1 Flash scores CyberGym: 87.9%, DRACO: 85.5%, FrontierSWE: 75.2%, Multi-Challenge: 69.8%, SkillsBench: 68.7%.

What are the main differences between DeepSeek VL2 Tiny and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (-4.7 vs 51.0), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (deepseek vs Unknown). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes DeepSeek VL2 Tiny and Ling 3.1 Flash?

DeepSeek VL2 Tiny is developed by DeepSeek and Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by InclusionAI.

Related comparisons