The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 21.0.

InclusionAI · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 21.0, 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 Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct

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

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Ling 3.1 Flash
InclusionAI
Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
51.0
#15
21.0
#205
Reasoning
47.5
#26
21.1
#198
Coding
38.8
#18
12.1
#164
Agents
38.0
#12
5.2
#161
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
— / M
$0.30 / M
Output price
— / M
$1.00 / M
Context window
—
262,144

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Ling 3.1 Flash
Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct
Tool use
29.0#16
12.5#114
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

11 reported for Ling 3.1 Flash · 10 for Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct

No common benchmarks found

Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B 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

80.0B diff

Ling 3.1 Flash has 80.0B more parameters than Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct, making it 16.7% larger.

InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
560.0Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct
480.0Bparameters
560.0B
Ling 3.1 Flash
480.0B
Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct specifies input context (262,144 tokens). Only Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct specifies output context (262,144 tokens).

InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct
Input262,144 tokens
Output262,144 tokens
Sat Oct 10 2026 • llm-stats.com

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30, while Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct was released on 2025-01-31.

Ling 3.1 Flash is 20 months newer than Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct.

Ling 3.1 Flash

Sep 30, 2026

1 weeks ago

1.7yr newer
Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct

Jan 31, 2025

1.7 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 Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Ling 3.1 Flash
✓ Preferred
Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct.

Which is better, Ling 3.1 Flash or Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 21.0. Ling 3.1 Flash is made by InclusionAI and Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B 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 Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct in benchmarks?

Ling 3.1 Flash scores CyberGym: 87.9%, DRACO: 85.5%, FrontierSWE: 75.2%, Multi-Challenge: 69.8%, SkillsBench: 68.7%. Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct scores TAU-bench Retail: 77.5%, SWE-Bench Verified: 69.6%, BFCL-v3: 68.7%, Aider-Polyglot: 61.8%, TAU-bench Airline: 60.0%.

What are the context window sizes for Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct?

Ling 3.1 Flash supports an unknown number of tokens and Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct 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 Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (51.0 vs 21.0), licensing (Unknown vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct?

Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by InclusionAI and Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Related comparisons