Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.1 to 12.1.
InclusionAI · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Ling 3.1 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.1 to 12.1, ranking #14 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 51.1 and ranks #14 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 Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Individual benchmarks
11 reported for Ling 3.1 Flash · 14 for Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen2.5 72B Instructdon'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
Ling 3.1 Flash has 487.3B more parameters than Qwen2.5 72B Instruct, making it 670.3% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct specifies input context (131,072 tokens). Only Qwen2.5 72B Instruct specifies output context (8,192 tokens).
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30, while Qwen2.5 72B Instruct was released on 2024-09-19.
Ling 3.1 Flash is 25 months newer than Qwen2.5 72B Instruct.
Sep 30, 2026
1 weeks ago
2.0yr newerSep 19, 2024
2.0 years ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen2.5 72B Instruct.