Ling 3.1 Flash vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 13.8.
InclusionAI · Meta · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Ling 3.1 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 13.8, ranking #15 overall.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
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
Choose Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Individual benchmarks
11 reported for Ling 3.1 Flash · 9 for Llama 3.3 70B Instruct
Ling 3.1 Flash and Llama 3.3 70B Instructdon'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
Ling 3.1 Flash has 490.0B more parameters than Llama 3.3 70B Instruct, making it 700.0% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct specifies input context (131,072 tokens). Only Llama 3.3 70B Instruct specifies output context (131,072 tokens).
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30, while Llama 3.3 70B Instruct was released on 2024-12-06.
Ling 3.1 Flash is 22 months newer than Llama 3.3 70B Instruct.
Sep 30, 2026
1 weeks ago
1.8yr newerDec 6, 2024
1.8 years ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Ling 3.1 Flash and Llama 3.3 70B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Ling 3.1 Flash vs Llama 3.3 70B Instruct.