The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Max

Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen3.8 Max are closely matched at 51.0 and 51.1 on the LLM Stats Score.

InclusionAI · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen3.8 Max are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 51.0 and 51.1.

In the 3 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

  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 2 of 3 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2026

Choose Qwen3.8 Max

  • 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
51.1
#14
47.5
#26
49.8
#14
38.8
#18
38.1
#20
38.0
#12
36.2
#18
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
2 of 3
1 of 3
Input price
— / M
$1.65 / M
Output price
— / M
$4.95 / M
Context window
—
256,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Ling 3.1 Flash
Qwen3.8 Max
29.0#16
28.4#18
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

11 reported for Ling 3.1 Flash · 42 for Qwen3.8 Max

3 shared

Ling 3.1 Flash outperforms in 2 benchmarks (AutomationBench, FrontierSWE), while Qwen3.8 Max is better at 1 benchmark (SkillsBench).

Ling 3.1 Flash shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.

Thu Oct 08 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

1840.0B diff

Qwen3.8 Max has 1840.0B more parameters than Ling 3.1 Flash, making it 328.6% larger.

InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
560.0Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8 Max
2.4Tparameters
560.0B
Ling 3.1 Flash
2400.0B
Qwen3.8 Max

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Qwen3.8 Max specifies input context (256,000 tokens). Only Qwen3.8 Max specifies output context (256,000 tokens).

InclusionAI
Ling 3.1 Flash
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3.8 Max
Input256,000 tokens
Output256,000 tokens
Thu Oct 08 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Qwen3.8 Max supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.1 Flash does not.

Qwen3.8 Max 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

Qwen3.8 Max

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30, while Qwen3.8 Max was released on 2026-08-02.

Ling 3.1 Flash is 2 months newer than Qwen3.8 Max.

Ling 3.1 Flash

Sep 30, 2026

1 weeks ago

1mo newer
Qwen3.8 Max

Aug 2, 2026

2 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 Qwen3.8 Max side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Ling 3.1 Flash
✓ Preferred
Qwen3.8 Max
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Max.

Which is better, Ling 3.1 Flash or Qwen3.8 Max?

Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen3.8 Max are closely matched on the LLM Stats Score at 51.0 and 51.1. Ling 3.1 Flash is made by InclusionAI and Qwen3.8 Max 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 Qwen3.8 Max in benchmarks?

Ling 3.1 Flash scores CyberGym: 87.9%, DRACO: 85.5%, FrontierSWE: 75.2%, Multi-Challenge: 69.8%, SkillsBench: 68.7%. Qwen3.8 Max scores PaperBench: 93.0%, MRCR v2 (8-needle): 92.9%, GPQA: 92.6%, VideoMME w sub.: 90.4%, RealWorldQA: 88.0%.

What are the context window sizes for Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen3.8 Max?

Ling 3.1 Flash supports an unknown number of tokens and Qwen3.8 Max supports 256K 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 Qwen3.8 Max?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (51.0 vs 51.1), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (Unknown vs Qwen3.8-Max License). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Ling 3.1 Flash and Qwen3.8 Max?

Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by InclusionAI and Qwen3.8 Max is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.