The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Ling 3.1 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.1

Ling 3.1 Flash and Muse Spark 1.1 are closely matched at 51.1 and 48.7 on the LLM Stats Score.

InclusionAI · Meta · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.1 Flash and Muse Spark 1.1 are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 51.1 and 48.7.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Ling 3.1 Flash wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Ling 3.1 Flash

  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose Muse Spark 1.1

  • you want predictable pricing at $1.25/M input and $4.25/M output

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Ling 3.1 Flash
InclusionAI
Muse Spark 1.1
Meta
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
51.1
#14
48.7
#24
Reasoning
47.7
#25
49.3
#17
Coding
39.2
#17
33.3
#40
Agents
38.3
#11
33.3
#30
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 1
0 of 1
Input price
— / M
$1.25 / M
Output price
— / M
$4.25 / M
Context window
—
1,048,576

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Ling 3.1 Flash
Muse Spark 1.1
Tool use
29.0#13
29.0#12
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

11 reported for Ling 3.1 Flash · 11 for Muse Spark 1.1

1 shared

Ling 3.1 Flash outperforms in 1 benchmarks (Finance Agent v2), while Muse Spark 1.1 is better at 0 benchmarks.

Ling 3.1 Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Wed Oct 07 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Muse Spark 1.1 specifies input context (1,048,576 tokens). Only Muse Spark 1.1 specifies output context (131,072 tokens).

InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Meta
Muse Spark 1.1
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Wed Oct 07 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Muse Spark 1.1 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.1 Flash does not.

Muse Spark 1.1 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

Muse Spark 1.1

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30, while Muse Spark 1.1 was released on 2026-07-09.

Ling 3.1 Flash is 3 months newer than Muse Spark 1.1.

Ling 3.1 Flash

Sep 30, 2026

1 weeks ago

2mo newer
Muse Spark 1.1

Jul 9, 2026

3 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 Muse Spark 1.1 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Ling 3.1 Flash
✓ Preferred
Muse Spark 1.1
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Ling 3.1 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.1.

Which is better, Ling 3.1 Flash or Muse Spark 1.1?

Ling 3.1 Flash and Muse Spark 1.1 are closely matched on the LLM Stats Score at 51.1 and 48.7. Ling 3.1 Flash is made by InclusionAI and Muse Spark 1.1 is made by Meta. 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 Muse Spark 1.1 in benchmarks?

Ling 3.1 Flash scores CyberGym: 87.9%, DRACO: 85.5%, FrontierSWE: 75.2%, Multi-Challenge: 69.8%, SkillsBench: 68.7%. Muse Spark 1.1 scores CharXiv-R: 88.4%, MCP Atlas: 88.1%, OSWorld-Verified: 80.8%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 80.0%, BabyVision: 76.3%.

What are the context window sizes for Ling 3.1 Flash and Muse Spark 1.1?

Ling 3.1 Flash supports an unknown number of tokens and Muse Spark 1.1 supports 1.0M 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 Muse Spark 1.1?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (51.1 vs 48.7), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (Unknown vs Proprietary). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Ling 3.1 Flash and Muse Spark 1.1?

Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by InclusionAI and Muse Spark 1.1 is developed by Meta.

Related comparisons