The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Ling 3.1 Flash vs Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 0.3.

InclusionAI · Mistral AI · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 0.3, 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 — it leads those capability indexes
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base

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

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Ling 3.1 Flash
InclusionAI
Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base
Mistral AI
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
51.0
#15
0.3
#341
Reasoning
47.5
#26
0.5
#332
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
— / M
$0.10 / M
Output price
— / M
$0.30 / M
Context window
—
128,000

Individual benchmarks

11 reported for Ling 3.1 Flash · 5 for Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base

No common benchmarks found

Ling 3.1 Flash and Mistral Small 3.1 24B Basedon'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

536.0B diff

Ling 3.1 Flash has 536.0B more parameters than Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base, making it 2233.3% larger.

InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
560.0Bparameters
Mistral AI
Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base
24.0Bparameters
560.0B
Ling 3.1 Flash
24.0B
Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base specifies input context (128,000 tokens). Only Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base specifies output context (128,000 tokens).

InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Mistral AI
Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Thu Oct 08 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.1 Flash does not.

Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Ling 3.1 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30, while Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base was released on 2025-03-17.

Ling 3.1 Flash is 19 months newer than Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base.

Ling 3.1 Flash

Sep 30, 2026

1 weeks ago

1.5yr newer
Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base

Mar 17, 2025

1.6 years 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 Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Ling 3.1 Flash
✓ Preferred
Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Ling 3.1 Flash vs Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base.

Which is better, Ling 3.1 Flash or Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 0.3. Ling 3.1 Flash is made by InclusionAI and Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base is made by Mistral AI. 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 Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base in benchmarks?

Ling 3.1 Flash scores CyberGym: 87.9%, DRACO: 85.5%, FrontierSWE: 75.2%, Multi-Challenge: 69.8%, SkillsBench: 68.7%. Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base scores MMLU: 81.0%, TriviaQA: 80.5%, MMMU: 59.3%, MMLU-Pro: 56.0%, GPQA: 37.5%.

What are the context window sizes for Ling 3.1 Flash and Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base?

Ling 3.1 Flash supports an unknown number of tokens and Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base 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 Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (51.0 vs 0.3), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (Unknown vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Ling 3.1 Flash and Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base?

Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by InclusionAI and Mistral Small 3.1 24B Base is developed by Mistral AI.

Related comparisons