The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3.7-Plus

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 42.3.

InclusionAI · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 42.3, ranking #15 overall.

In the 2 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Ling 3.1 Flash wins 2; 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 2 of 2 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose Qwen3.7-Plus

  • you want predictable pricing at $0.32/M input and $1.28/M output

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Ling 3.1 Flash
InclusionAI
Qwen3.7-Plus
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
51.0
#15
42.3
#59
Reasoning
47.5
#26
42.8
#52
Coding
38.8
#18
29.9
#57
Agents
38.0
#12
23.7
#64
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
2 of 2
0 of 2
Input price
— / M
$0.32 / M
Output price
— / M
$1.28 / M
Context window
—
1,000,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Ling 3.1 Flash
Qwen3.7-Plus
Tool use
29.0#16
22.3#49
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

11 reported for Ling 3.1 Flash · 70 for Qwen3.7-Plus

2 shared

Ling 3.1 Flash outperforms in 2 benchmarks (Finance Agent v2, SkillsBench), while Qwen3.7-Plus is better at 0 benchmarks.

Ling 3.1 Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Mon Oct 12 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Qwen3.7-Plus specifies input context (1,000,000 tokens). Only Qwen3.7-Plus specifies output context (65,536 tokens).

InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.7-Plus
Input1,000,000 tokens
Output65,536 tokens
Mon Oct 12 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Qwen3.7-Plus supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.1 Flash does not.

Qwen3.7-Plus 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

Qwen3.7-Plus

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30, while Qwen3.7-Plus was released on 2026-05-31.

Ling 3.1 Flash is 4 months newer than Qwen3.7-Plus.

Ling 3.1 Flash

Sep 30, 2026

1 weeks ago

4mo newer
Qwen3.7-Plus

May 31, 2026

4 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 Qwen3.7-Plus side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Ling 3.1 Flash
✓ Preferred
Qwen3.7-Plus
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3.7-Plus.

Which is better, Ling 3.1 Flash or Qwen3.7-Plus?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 42.3. Ling 3.1 Flash is made by InclusionAI and Qwen3.7-Plus 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 Qwen3.7-Plus in benchmarks?

Ling 3.1 Flash scores CyberGym: 87.9%, DRACO: 85.5%, FrontierSWE: 75.2%, Multi-Challenge: 69.8%, SkillsBench: 68.7%. Qwen3.7-Plus scores IFEval: 94.6%, MMLU-Redux: 94.5%, HMMT Feb 26: 92.9%, MRCR v2: 91.7%, OmniDocBench 1.5: 91.4%.

What are the context window sizes for Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen3.7-Plus?

Ling 3.1 Flash supports an unknown number of tokens and Qwen3.7-Plus supports 1.0M 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 Qwen3.7-Plus?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (51.0 vs 42.3), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (Unknown vs Proprietary). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen3.7-Plus?

Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by InclusionAI and Qwen3.7-Plus is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Related comparisons