The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Ling 3.1 Flash vs QvQ-72B-Preview

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 7.8.

InclusionAI · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 7.8, 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 QvQ-72B-Preview

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

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Ling 3.1 Flash
InclusionAI
QvQ-72B-Preview
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
51.0
#15
7.8
#298
Reasoning
47.5
#26
8.2
#291
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
— / M
— / M
Output price
— / M
— / M
Context window
—
—

Individual benchmarks

11 reported for Ling 3.1 Flash · 4 for QvQ-72B-Preview

No common benchmarks found

Ling 3.1 Flash and QvQ-72B-Previewdon'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

486.6B diff

Ling 3.1 Flash has 486.6B more parameters than QvQ-72B-Preview, making it 662.9% larger.

InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
560.0Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
QvQ-72B-Preview
73.4Bparameters
560.0B
Ling 3.1 Flash
73.4B
QvQ-72B-Preview

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

QvQ-72B-Preview supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.1 Flash does not.

QvQ-72B-Preview 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

QvQ-72B-Preview

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30, while QvQ-72B-Preview was released on 2024-12-25.

Ling 3.1 Flash is 21 months newer than QvQ-72B-Preview.

Ling 3.1 Flash

Sep 30, 2026

1 weeks ago

1.8yr newer
QvQ-72B-Preview

Dec 25, 2024

1.8 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 QvQ-72B-Preview side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Ling 3.1 Flash
✓ Preferred
QvQ-72B-Preview
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Ling 3.1 Flash vs QvQ-72B-Preview.

Which is better, Ling 3.1 Flash or QvQ-72B-Preview?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 7.8. Ling 3.1 Flash is made by InclusionAI and QvQ-72B-Preview is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. 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 QvQ-72B-Preview in benchmarks?

Ling 3.1 Flash scores CyberGym: 87.9%, DRACO: 85.5%, FrontierSWE: 75.2%, Multi-Challenge: 69.8%, SkillsBench: 68.7%. QvQ-72B-Preview scores MathVista: 71.4%, MMMU: 70.3%, MathVision: 35.9%, OlympiadBench: 20.4%.

What are the main differences between Ling 3.1 Flash and QvQ-72B-Preview?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (51.0 vs 7.8), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (Unknown vs Qwen). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Ling 3.1 Flash and QvQ-72B-Preview?

Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by InclusionAI and QvQ-72B-Preview is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Related comparisons