The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Ling 3.1 Flash vs LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 35.4.

InclusionAI · Meituan · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 35.4, 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 LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601

  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Ling 3.1 Flash
InclusionAI
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601
Meituan
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
51.0
#15
35.4
#99
Reasoning
47.5
#26
35.5
#91
Coding
38.8
#18
18.7
#121
Agents
38.0
#12
9.6
#136
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
— / M
$0.30 / M
Output price
— / M
$1.20 / M
Context window
—
128,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Ling 3.1 Flash
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601
Tool use
29.0#16
24.3#38
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

11 reported for Ling 3.1 Flash · 11 for LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601

No common benchmarks found

Ling 3.1 Flash and LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601don'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

0.0M diff

LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 has 0.0B more parameters than Ling 3.1 Flash, making it 0.0% larger.

InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
560.0Bparameters
Meituan
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601
560.0Bparameters
560.0B
Ling 3.1 Flash
560.0B
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 specifies input context (128,000 tokens). Only LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 specifies output context (128,000 tokens).

InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Meituan
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Fri Oct 09 2026 • llm-stats.com

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30, while LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 was released on 2026-01-14.

Ling 3.1 Flash is 9 months newer than LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601.

Ling 3.1 Flash

Sep 30, 2026

1 weeks ago

8mo newer
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601

Jan 14, 2026

8 months ago

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 Ling 3.1 Flash and LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Ling 3.1 Flash
✓ Preferred
LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Ling 3.1 Flash vs LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601.

Which is better, Ling 3.1 Flash or LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 35.4. Ling 3.1 Flash is made by InclusionAI and LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 is made by Meituan. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Ling 3.1 Flash compare to LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 in benchmarks?

Ling 3.1 Flash scores CyberGym: 87.9%, DRACO: 85.5%, FrontierSWE: 75.2%, Multi-Challenge: 69.8%, SkillsBench: 68.7%. LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 scores AIME 2025: 99.6%, Tau2 Telecom: 99.3%, Tau2 Retail: 88.6%, LiveCodeBench: 82.8%, GPQA: 80.5%.

What are the context window sizes for Ling 3.1 Flash and LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601?

Ling 3.1 Flash supports an unknown number of tokens and LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 supports 128K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Ling 3.1 Flash and LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (51.0 vs 35.4), licensing (Unknown vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Ling 3.1 Flash and LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601?

Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by InclusionAI and LongCat-Flash-Thinking-2601 is developed by Meituan.

Related comparisons