The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

GPT-4.1 nano vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 1.6.

OpenAI · InclusionAI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 1.6, ranking #15 overall.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Ling 3.1 Flash wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

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

Choose GPT-4.1 nano

  • you want predictable pricing at $0.10/M input and $0.40/M output

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 value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

GPT-4.1 nano
OpenAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
InclusionAI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
1.6
#336
51.0
#15
Reasoning
1.9
#324
47.5
#26
Coding
-11.9
#281
38.8
#18
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
0 of 1
1 of 1
Input price
$0.10 / M
— / M
Output price
$0.40 / M
— / M
Context window
1,047,576
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
GPT-4.1 nano
Ling 3.1 Flash
Tool use
-10.5#208
29.0#16
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

24 reported for GPT-4.1 nano · 11 for Ling 3.1 Flash

1 shared

GPT-4.1 nano outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Ling 3.1 Flash is better at 1 benchmark (Multi-Challenge).

Ling 3.1 Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Thu Oct 08 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only GPT-4.1 nano specifies input context (1,047,576 tokens). Only GPT-4.1 nano specifies output context (32,768 tokens).

OpenAI
GPT-4.1 nano
Input1,047,576 tokens
Output32,768 tokens
InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Thu Oct 08 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

GPT-4.1 nano supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.1 Flash does not.

GPT-4.1 nano can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

GPT-4.1 nano

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Ling 3.1 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

GPT-4.1 nano was released on 2025-04-14, while Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30.

Ling 3.1 Flash is 18 months newer than GPT-4.1 nano.

GPT-4.1 nano

Apr 14, 2025

1.5 years ago

Ling 3.1 Flash

Sep 30, 2026

1 weeks ago

1.5yr newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

GPT-4.1 nano has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2024-05-31, while Ling 3.1 Flash's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm GPT-4.1 nano's training data extends to 2024-05-31, but cannot make a direct comparison without Ling 3.1 Flash's cutoff date.

GPT-4.1 nano

May 2024

Ling 3.1 Flash

—

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against GPT-4.1 nano and Ling 3.1 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

GPT-4.1 nano
✓ Preferred
Ling 3.1 Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about GPT-4.1 nano vs Ling 3.1 Flash.

Which is better, GPT-4.1 nano or Ling 3.1 Flash?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 1.6. GPT-4.1 nano is made by OpenAI 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 GPT-4.1 nano compare to Ling 3.1 Flash in benchmarks?

GPT-4.1 nano scores MMLU: 80.1%, IFEval: 74.5%, CharXiv-D: 73.9%, MMMLU: 66.9%, Multi-IF: 57.2%. 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 GPT-4.1 nano and Ling 3.1 Flash?

GPT-4.1 nano supports 1.0M 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 GPT-4.1 nano and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (1.6 vs 51.0), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs Unknown). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes GPT-4.1 nano and Ling 3.1 Flash?

GPT-4.1 nano is developed by OpenAI and Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by InclusionAI.

Related comparisons