The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Gemma 2 27B vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.1 to -0.7.

Google · InclusionAI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.1 to -0.7, ranking #14 overall.

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

Choose Gemma 2 27B

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

Choose Ling 3.1 Flash

  • overall performance matters — it scores 51.1 and ranks #14 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and coding — it leads those capability indexes
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Gemma 2 27B
Google
Ling 3.1 Flash
InclusionAI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
-0.7
#344
51.1
#14
Reasoning
-1.1
#340
47.7
#25
Coding
-8.0
#277
39.2
#17
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
— / M
— / M
Output price
— / M
— / M
Context window
—
—

Individual benchmarks

16 reported for Gemma 2 27B · 11 for Ling 3.1 Flash

No common benchmarks found

Gemma 2 27B 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

532.8B diff

Ling 3.1 Flash has 532.8B more parameters than Gemma 2 27B, making it 1958.8% larger.

Google
Gemma 2 27B
27.2Bparameters
InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
560.0Bparameters
27.2B
Gemma 2 27B
560.0B
Ling 3.1 Flash

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemma 2 27B was released on 2024-06-27, while Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30.

Ling 3.1 Flash is 28 months newer than Gemma 2 27B.

Gemma 2 27B

Jun 27, 2024

2.3 years ago

Ling 3.1 Flash

Sep 30, 2026

1 weeks ago

2.3yr 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 Gemma 2 27B and Ling 3.1 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Gemma 2 27B
✓ Preferred
Ling 3.1 Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Gemma 2 27B vs Ling 3.1 Flash.

Which is better, Gemma 2 27B or Ling 3.1 Flash?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.1 to -0.7. Gemma 2 27B is made by Google 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 Gemma 2 27B compare to Ling 3.1 Flash in benchmarks?

Gemma 2 27B scores ARC-E: 88.6%, HellaSwag: 86.4%, BoolQ: 84.8%, TriviaQA: 83.7%, Winogrande: 83.7%. 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 Gemma 2 27B and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (-0.7 vs 51.1), licensing (Gemma vs Unknown). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Gemma 2 27B and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Gemma 2 27B is developed by Google and Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by InclusionAI.

Related comparisons