The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Ling 3.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 21.9.

InclusionAI · NVIDIA · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 21.9, 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 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)

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

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Ling 3.1 Flash
InclusionAI
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)
NVIDIA
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
51.0
#15
21.9
#196
Reasoning
47.5
#26
19.5
#213
Coding
38.8
#18
8.1
#196
Agents
38.0
#12
6.6
#155
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
— / M
$0.08 / M
Output price
— / M
$0.20 / M
Context window
—
262,144

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Ling 3.1 Flash
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)
Tool use
29.0#16
-0.2#194
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

11 reported for Ling 3.1 Flash · 13 for Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)

No common benchmarks found

Ling 3.1 Flash and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)don'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

530.0B diff

Ling 3.1 Flash has 530.0B more parameters than Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B), making it 1766.7% larger.

InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
560.0Bparameters
NVIDIA
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)
30.0Bparameters
560.0B
Ling 3.1 Flash
30.0B
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B) specifies input context (262,144 tokens). Only Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B) specifies output context (262,144 tokens).

InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
NVIDIA
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)
Input262,144 tokens
Output262,144 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 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B) was released on 2026-08-11.

Ling 3.1 Flash is 2 months newer than Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B).

Ling 3.1 Flash

Sep 30, 2026

1 weeks ago

1mo newer
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)

Aug 11, 2026

2 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 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B) side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Ling 3.1 Flash
✓ Preferred
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Ling 3.1 Flash vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B).

Which is better, Ling 3.1 Flash or Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 21.9. Ling 3.1 Flash is made by InclusionAI and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B) is made by NVIDIA. 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 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B) in benchmarks?

Ling 3.1 Flash scores CyberGym: 87.9%, DRACO: 85.5%, FrontierSWE: 75.2%, Multi-Challenge: 69.8%, SkillsBench: 68.7%. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B) scores PinchBench: 85.4%, MMLU-Pro: 81.9%, GPQA: 75.4%, IFBench: 71.9%, AA-LCR: 52.0%.

What are the context window sizes for Ling 3.1 Flash and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)?

Ling 3.1 Flash supports an unknown number of tokens and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B) supports 262K 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 Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (51.0 vs 21.9), licensing (Unknown vs OpenMDW License v1.1). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Ling 3.1 Flash and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B)?

Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by InclusionAI and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning (30B A3B) is developed by NVIDIA.

Related comparisons