The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Ling 3.1 Flash vs Mercury 2

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 23.5.

InclusionAI · Inception · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 23.5, 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 Mercury 2

  • you want predictable pricing at $0.25/M input and $0.75/M output

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Ling 3.1 Flash
InclusionAI
Mercury 2
Inception
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
51.0
#15
23.5
#190
Reasoning
47.5
#26
22.6
#184
Coding
38.8
#18
12.2
#162
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
— / M
$0.25 / M
Output price
— / M
$0.75 / M
Context window
—
128,000

Individual benchmarks

11 reported for Ling 3.1 Flash · 6 for Mercury 2

No common benchmarks found

Ling 3.1 Flash and Mercury 2don'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

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Mercury 2 specifies input context (128,000 tokens). Only Mercury 2 specifies output context (8,192 tokens).

InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Inception
Mercury 2
Input128,000 tokens
Output8,192 tokens
Sun Oct 11 2026 • llm-stats.com

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30, while Mercury 2 was released on 2026-02-24.

Ling 3.1 Flash is 7 months newer than Mercury 2.

Ling 3.1 Flash

Sep 30, 2026

1 weeks ago

7mo newer
Mercury 2

Feb 24, 2026

7 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 Mercury 2 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Ling 3.1 Flash
✓ Preferred
Mercury 2
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Ling 3.1 Flash vs Mercury 2.

Which is better, Ling 3.1 Flash or Mercury 2?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 23.5. Ling 3.1 Flash is made by InclusionAI and Mercury 2 is made by Inception. 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 Mercury 2 in benchmarks?

Ling 3.1 Flash scores CyberGym: 87.9%, DRACO: 85.5%, FrontierSWE: 75.2%, Multi-Challenge: 69.8%, SkillsBench: 68.7%. Mercury 2 scores AIME 2025: 91.1%, GPQA: 74.0%, IFBench: 71.0%, LiveCodeBench: 67.0%, Tau2 Airline: 53.0%.

What are the context window sizes for Ling 3.1 Flash and Mercury 2?

Ling 3.1 Flash supports an unknown number of tokens and Mercury 2 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 Mercury 2?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (51.0 vs 23.5), licensing (Unknown vs Proprietary). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Ling 3.1 Flash and Mercury 2?

Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by InclusionAI and Mercury 2 is developed by Inception.

Related comparisons