The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.1 to 14.3.

InclusionAI · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.1 to 14.3, 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 — it leads those capability indexes
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct

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

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Core performance indexes
51.1
#14
14.3
#252
47.7
#25
11.6
#267
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
— / M
— / M
Output price
— / M
— / M
Context window
—
—

Individual benchmarks

11 reported for Ling 3.1 Flash · 15 for Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct

No common benchmarks found

Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen2-VL-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

486.6B diff

Ling 3.1 Flash has 486.6B more parameters than Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct, making it 662.9% larger.

InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
560.0Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct
73.4Bparameters
560.0B
Ling 3.1 Flash
73.4B
Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.1 Flash does not.

Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct 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

Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30, while Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct was released on 2024-08-29.

Ling 3.1 Flash is 25 months newer than Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct.

Ling 3.1 Flash

Sep 30, 2026

1 weeks ago

2.1yr newer
Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct

Aug 29, 2024

2.1 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2023-06-30, while Ling 3.1 Flash's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct's training data extends to 2023-06-30, but cannot make a direct comparison without Ling 3.1 Flash's cutoff date.

Ling 3.1 Flash

—

Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct

Jun 2023

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Ling 3.1 Flash
✓ Preferred
Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct.

Which is better, Ling 3.1 Flash or Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.1 to 14.3. Ling 3.1 Flash is made by InclusionAI and Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct 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 Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct in benchmarks?

Ling 3.1 Flash scores CyberGym: 87.9%, DRACO: 85.5%, FrontierSWE: 75.2%, Multi-Challenge: 69.8%, SkillsBench: 68.7%. Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct scores DocVQAtest: 96.5%, VCR_en_easy: 91.9%, ChartQA: 88.3%, OCRBench: 87.7%, MMBench: 86.5%.

What are the main differences between Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (51.1 vs 14.3), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (Unknown vs tongyi-qianwen). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct?

Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by InclusionAI and Qwen2-VL-72B-Instruct is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.