The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen2.5-Omni-7B

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 5.2.

InclusionAI · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 5.2, 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 Qwen2.5-Omni-7B

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

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Ling 3.1 Flash
InclusionAI
Qwen2.5-Omni-7B
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
51.0
#15
5.2
#315
Reasoning
47.5
#26
1.4
#328
Coding
38.8
#18
1.1
#249
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
— / M
— / M
Output price
— / M
— / M
Context window
—
—

Individual benchmarks

11 reported for Ling 3.1 Flash · 45 for Qwen2.5-Omni-7B

No common benchmarks found

Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen2.5-Omni-7Bdon'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

553.0B diff

Ling 3.1 Flash has 553.0B more parameters than Qwen2.5-Omni-7B, making it 7900.0% larger.

InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
560.0Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen2.5-Omni-7B
7.0Bparameters
560.0B
Ling 3.1 Flash
7.0B
Qwen2.5-Omni-7B

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Qwen2.5-Omni-7B supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.1 Flash does not.

Qwen2.5-Omni-7B 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

Qwen2.5-Omni-7B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30, while Qwen2.5-Omni-7B was released on 2025-03-27.

Ling 3.1 Flash is 18 months newer than Qwen2.5-Omni-7B.

Ling 3.1 Flash

Sep 30, 2026

1 weeks ago

1.5yr newer
Qwen2.5-Omni-7B

Mar 27, 2025

1.5 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 Qwen2.5-Omni-7B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Ling 3.1 Flash
✓ Preferred
Qwen2.5-Omni-7B
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen2.5-Omni-7B.

Which is better, Ling 3.1 Flash or Qwen2.5-Omni-7B?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 5.2. Ling 3.1 Flash is made by InclusionAI and Qwen2.5-Omni-7B 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 Qwen2.5-Omni-7B in benchmarks?

Ling 3.1 Flash scores CyberGym: 87.9%, DRACO: 85.5%, FrontierSWE: 75.2%, Multi-Challenge: 69.8%, SkillsBench: 68.7%. Qwen2.5-Omni-7B scores FLEURS: 95.9%, DocVQA: 95.2%, VocalSound: 93.9%, GSM8k: 88.7%, GiantSteps Tempo: 88.0%.

What are the main differences between Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen2.5-Omni-7B?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (51.0 vs 5.2), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (Unknown vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen2.5-Omni-7B?

Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by InclusionAI and Qwen2.5-Omni-7B is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Related comparisons