The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 24.6.

InclusionAI · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 24.6, 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 agents — it leads those capability indexes
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct

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

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Core performance indexes
51.0
#15
24.6
#178
47.5
#26
22.5
#185
38.0
#12
12.4
#115
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
— / M
$0.20 / M
Output price
— / M
$0.88 / M
Context window
—
262,144

Individual benchmarks

11 reported for Ling 3.1 Flash · 50 for Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct

No common benchmarks found

Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B 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

324.0B diff

Ling 3.1 Flash has 324.0B more parameters than Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct, making it 137.3% larger.

InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
560.0Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct
236.0Bparameters
560.0B
Ling 3.1 Flash
236.0B
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct specifies input context (262,144 tokens). Only Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct specifies output context (262,144 tokens).

InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct
Input262,144 tokens
Output262,144 tokens
Thu Oct 08 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.1 Flash does not.

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B 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

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30, while Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct was released on 2025-09-22.

Ling 3.1 Flash is 12 months newer than Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct.

Ling 3.1 Flash

Sep 30, 2026

1 weeks ago

1.0yr newer
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct

Sep 22, 2025

1.0 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

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 VL 235B A22B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Ling 3.1 Flash
✓ Preferred
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct.

Which is better, Ling 3.1 Flash or Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 24.6. Ling 3.1 Flash is made by InclusionAI and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B 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 VL 235B A22B 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 VL 235B A22B Instruct scores DocVQAtest: 97.1%, ScreenSpot: 95.4%, MMLU-Redux: 92.2%, OCRBench: 92.0%, MMBench-V1.1: 89.9%.

What are the context window sizes for Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct?

Ling 3.1 Flash supports an unknown number of tokens and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B 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 VL 235B A22B Instruct?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (51.0 vs 24.6), 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 Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct?

Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by InclusionAI and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.