The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to -5.2.

Google · InclusionAI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.0 to -5.2, ranking #15 overall.

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

Choose Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview

  • 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 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 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview
Google
Ling 3.1 Flash
InclusionAI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
-5.2
#372
51.0
#15
Reasoning
-5.9
#367
47.5
#26
Coding
-0.1
#256
38.8
#18
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
— / M
— / M
Output price
— / M
— / M
Context window
—
—

Individual benchmarks

28 reported for Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview · 11 for Ling 3.1 Flash

No common benchmarks found

Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview 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

558.1B diff

Ling 3.1 Flash has 558.1B more parameters than Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview, making it 29219.4% larger.

Google
Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview
1.9Bparameters
InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
560.0Bparameters
1.9B
Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview
560.0B
Ling 3.1 Flash

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.1 Flash does not.

Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Ling 3.1 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview was released on 2025-05-20, while Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30.

Ling 3.1 Flash is 17 months newer than Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview.

Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview

May 20, 2025

1.4 years ago

Ling 3.1 Flash

Sep 30, 2026

1 weeks ago

1.4yr newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2024-06-01, while Ling 3.1 Flash's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview's training data extends to 2024-06-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without Ling 3.1 Flash's cutoff date.

Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview

Jun 2024

Ling 3.1 Flash

—

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview and Ling 3.1 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview
✓ Preferred
Ling 3.1 Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview vs Ling 3.1 Flash.

Which is better, Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview or Ling 3.1 Flash?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to -5.2. Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview 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 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview compare to Ling 3.1 Flash in benchmarks?

Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview scores ARC-E: 81.6%, BoolQ: 81.6%, PIQA: 81.0%, HellaSwag: 78.6%, HumanEval: 75.0%. 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 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (-5.2 vs 51.0), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Gemma vs Unknown). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Gemma 3n E4B Instructed LiteRT Preview is developed by Google and Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by InclusionAI.

Related comparisons