The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Gemma 4 26B-A4B vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 29.5.

Google · InclusionAI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 29.5, ranking #15 overall.

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

Choose Gemma 4 26B-A4B

  • 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 agents — 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 4 26B-A4B
Google
Ling 3.1 Flash
InclusionAI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
29.5
#141
51.0
#15
Reasoning
29.2
#138
47.5
#26
Agents
12.5
#114
38.0
#12
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$0.07 / M
— / M
Output price
$0.34 / M
— / M
Context window
262,144
—

Individual benchmarks

12 reported for Gemma 4 26B-A4B · 11 for Ling 3.1 Flash

No common benchmarks found

Gemma 4 26B-A4B 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

534.8B diff

Ling 3.1 Flash has 534.8B more parameters than Gemma 4 26B-A4B, making it 2122.2% larger.

Google
Gemma 4 26B-A4B
25.2Bparameters
InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
560.0Bparameters
25.2B
Gemma 4 26B-A4B
560.0B
Ling 3.1 Flash

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Gemma 4 26B-A4B specifies input context (262,144 tokens). Only Gemma 4 26B-A4B specifies output context (262,144 tokens).

Google
Gemma 4 26B-A4B
Input262,144 tokens
Output262,144 tokens
InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Sun Oct 11 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Gemma 4 26B-A4B supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.1 Flash does not.

Gemma 4 26B-A4B can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Gemma 4 26B-A4B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Ling 3.1 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemma 4 26B-A4B was released on 2026-04-02, while Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30.

Ling 3.1 Flash is 6 months newer than Gemma 4 26B-A4B.

Gemma 4 26B-A4B

Apr 2, 2026

6 months ago

Ling 3.1 Flash

Sep 30, 2026

1 weeks ago

6mo newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Gemma 4 26B-A4B has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2025-01-01, while Ling 3.1 Flash's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Gemma 4 26B-A4B's training data extends to 2025-01-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without Ling 3.1 Flash's cutoff date.

Gemma 4 26B-A4B

Jan 2025

Ling 3.1 Flash

—

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Gemma 4 26B-A4B and Ling 3.1 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Gemma 4 26B-A4B
✓ Preferred
Ling 3.1 Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Gemma 4 26B-A4B vs Ling 3.1 Flash.

Which is better, Gemma 4 26B-A4B or Ling 3.1 Flash?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 29.5. Gemma 4 26B-A4B 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 4 26B-A4B compare to Ling 3.1 Flash in benchmarks?

Gemma 4 26B-A4B scores AIME 2026: 88.3%, MMMLU: 86.3%, t2-bench: 85.5%, MMLU-Pro: 82.6%, MathVision: 82.4%. Ling 3.1 Flash scores CyberGym: 87.9%, DRACO: 85.5%, FrontierSWE: 75.2%, Multi-Challenge: 69.8%, SkillsBench: 68.7%.

What are the context window sizes for Gemma 4 26B-A4B and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Gemma 4 26B-A4B supports 262K tokens and Ling 3.1 Flash supports an unknown number of tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Gemma 4 26B-A4B and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (29.5 vs 51.0), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Apache 2.0 vs Unknown). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Gemma 4 26B-A4B and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Gemma 4 26B-A4B is developed by Google and Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by InclusionAI.

Related comparisons