Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.1 to 38.5.
InclusionAI · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Ling 3.1 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.1 to 38.5, ranking #14 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 51.1 and ranks #14 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 Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
11 reported for Ling 3.1 Flash · 38 for Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Ling 3.1 Flash outperforms in 1 benchmarks (Multi-Challenge), while Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is better at 0 benchmarks.
Ling 3.1 Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
Ling 3.1 Flash has 163.0B more parameters than Qwen3.5-397B-A17B, making it 41.1% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Only Qwen3.5-397B-A17B specifies input context (262,144 tokens). Only Qwen3.5-397B-A17B specifies output context (262,144 tokens).
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.1 Flash does not.
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
Ling 3.1 Flash
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30, while Qwen3.5-397B-A17B was released on 2026-02-16.
Ling 3.1 Flash is 8 months newer than Qwen3.5-397B-A17B.
Sep 30, 2026
1 weeks ago
7mo newerFeb 16, 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.
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen3.5-397B-A17B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B.