The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-35B-A3B

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 30.8.

InclusionAI · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 30.8, ranking #15 overall.

In the 1 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Ling 3.1 Flash wins 1; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

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 value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 1 of 1 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose Qwen3.5-35B-A3B

  • 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
30.8
#132
47.5
#26
31.8
#119
38.8
#18
11.4
#168
38.0
#12
12.2
#116
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 1
0 of 1
Input price
— / M
$0.14 / 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
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
29.0#16
11.3#123
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

11 reported for Ling 3.1 Flash · 81 for Qwen3.5-35B-A3B

1 shared

Ling 3.1 Flash outperforms in 1 benchmarks (Multi-Challenge), while Qwen3.5-35B-A3B is better at 0 benchmarks.

Ling 3.1 Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Fri Oct 09 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

525.0B diff

Ling 3.1 Flash has 525.0B more parameters than Qwen3.5-35B-A3B, making it 1500.0% larger.

InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
560.0Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
35.0Bparameters
560.0B
Ling 3.1 Flash
35.0B
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B specifies input context (262,144 tokens). Only Qwen3.5-35B-A3B specifies output context (262,144 tokens).

InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
Input262,144 tokens
Output262,144 tokens
Fri Oct 09 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Qwen3.5-35B-A3B supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.1 Flash does not.

Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 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

Qwen3.5-35B-A3B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30, while Qwen3.5-35B-A3B was released on 2026-02-24.

Ling 3.1 Flash is 7 months newer than Qwen3.5-35B-A3B.

Ling 3.1 Flash

Sep 30, 2026

1 weeks ago

7mo newer
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B

Feb 24, 2026

7 months 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 Qwen3.5-35B-A3B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Ling 3.1 Flash
✓ Preferred
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-35B-A3B.

Which is better, Ling 3.1 Flash or Qwen3.5-35B-A3B?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 30.8. Ling 3.1 Flash is made by InclusionAI and Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 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 Qwen3.5-35B-A3B in benchmarks?

Ling 3.1 Flash scores CyberGym: 87.9%, DRACO: 85.5%, FrontierSWE: 75.2%, Multi-Challenge: 69.8%, SkillsBench: 68.7%. Qwen3.5-35B-A3B scores CountBench: 97.8%, VLMsAreBlind: 97.0%, MMLU-Redux: 93.3%, V*: 92.7%, AI2D: 92.6%.

What are the context window sizes for Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen3.5-35B-A3B?

Ling 3.1 Flash supports an unknown number of tokens and Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 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 Qwen3.5-35B-A3B?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (51.0 vs 30.8), 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 Qwen3.5-35B-A3B?

Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by InclusionAI and Qwen3.5-35B-A3B is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.