Ling 3.0 Flash vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Ling 3.0 Flash and Qwen3.5-397B-A17B are closely matched at 36.5 and 38.8 on the LLM Stats Score. Ling 3.0 Flash is 12.1x cheaper per token.
InclusionAI · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Ling 3.0 Flash and Qwen3.5-397B-A17B are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 36.5 and 38.8.
In the 9 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Ling 3.0 Flash wins 5; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Ling 3.0 Flash is roughly 12.1x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B also accepts a larger context window (262,144 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose Ling 3.0 Flash
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 5 of 9 exact shared results
- cost matters — it's about 12.1x cheaper per token
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Aug 2026
Choose Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- you process long inputs — it offers a 262,144 token context window
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
19 reported for Ling 3.0 Flash · 38 for Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Ling 3.0 Flash outperforms in 5 benchmarks (AIME 2026, BFCL-V4, BrowseComp, IMO-AnswerBench, SWE-bench Multilingual), while Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is better at 4 benchmarks (AA-LCR, IFBench, LiveCodeBench v6, WideSearch).
Ling 3.0 Flash has a slight edge in benchmark performance.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Ling 3.0 Flash ($0.06/1M tokens) is 7.5x cheaper than Qwen3.5-397B-A17B ($0.45/1M tokens).
For output processing, Ling 3.0 Flash ($0.18/1M tokens) is 16.7x cheaper than Qwen3.5-397B-A17B ($3.00/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is more expensive than Ling 3.0 Flash.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B has 273.0B more parameters than Ling 3.0 Flash, making it 220.2% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B accepts 262,144 input tokens compared to Ling 3.0 Flash's 131,072 tokens. Qwen3.5-397B-A17B can generate longer responses up to 262,144 tokens, while Ling 3.0 Flash is limited to 131,072 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.0 Flash does not.
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
Ling 3.0 Flash
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Ling 3.0 Flash was released on 2026-08-04, while Qwen3.5-397B-A17B was released on 2026-02-16.
Ling 3.0 Flash is 6 months newer than Qwen3.5-397B-A17B.
Aug 4, 2026
1 months ago
5mo newerFeb 16, 2026
6 months ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
Ling 3.0 Flash is available from DeepInfra. Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is available from DeepInfra, Novita.
Ling 3.0 Flash
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Ling 3.0 Flash and Qwen3.5-397B-A17B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Ling 3.0 Flash vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B.