The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Inkling-Small vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 38.1.

Thinking Machines Lab · InclusionAI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 38.1, ranking #15 overall.

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

Choose Inkling-Small

  • 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.

Inkling-Small
Thinking Machines Lab
Ling 3.1 Flash
InclusionAI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
38.1
#77
51.0
#15
Reasoning
37.7
#77
47.5
#26
Coding
28.5
#67
38.8
#18
Agents
22.7
#70
38.0
#12
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$0.30 / M
— / M
Output price
$1.20 / M
— / M
Context window
256,000
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Inkling-Small
Ling 3.1 Flash
Tool use
19.0#70
29.0#16
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

24 reported for Inkling-Small · 11 for Ling 3.1 Flash

No common benchmarks found

Inkling-Small 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

284.0B diff

Ling 3.1 Flash has 284.0B more parameters than Inkling-Small, making it 102.9% larger.

Thinking Machines Lab
Inkling-Small
276.0Bparameters
InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
560.0Bparameters
276.0B
Inkling-Small
560.0B
Ling 3.1 Flash

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Inkling-Small specifies input context (256,000 tokens). Only Inkling-Small specifies output context (256,000 tokens).

Thinking Machines Lab
Inkling-Small
Input256,000 tokens
Output256,000 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

Inkling-Small supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.1 Flash does not.

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

Inkling-Small

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Ling 3.1 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Inkling-Small was released on 2026-07-30, while Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30.

Ling 3.1 Flash is 2 months newer than Inkling-Small.

Inkling-Small

Jul 30, 2026

2 months ago

Ling 3.1 Flash

Sep 30, 2026

1 weeks ago

2mo 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 Inkling-Small and Ling 3.1 Flash side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Inkling-Small
✓ Preferred
Ling 3.1 Flash
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Inkling-Small vs Ling 3.1 Flash.

Which is better, Inkling-Small or Ling 3.1 Flash?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 38.1. Inkling-Small is made by Thinking Machines Lab 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 Inkling-Small compare to Ling 3.1 Flash in benchmarks?

Inkling-Small scores AIME 2026: 95.5%, VoiceBench Avg: 90.1%, GPQA: 89.5%, Global-MMLU-Lite: 86.7%, ARC-AGI: 84.0%. Ling 3.1 Flash scores CyberGym: 87.9%, DRACO: 85.5%, FrontierSWE: 75.2%, Multi-Challenge: 69.8%, SkillsBench: 68.7%.

What are the context window sizes for Inkling-Small and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Inkling-Small supports 256K 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 Inkling-Small and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (38.1 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 Inkling-Small and Ling 3.1 Flash?

Inkling-Small is developed by Thinking Machines Lab and Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by InclusionAI.

Related comparisons