The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Ling 3.1 Flash vs Seed 2.1 Turbo

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 42.7.

InclusionAI · ByteDance · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 42.7, 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 Seed 2.1 Turbo

  • you are already invested in the ByteDance ecosystem

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Ling 3.1 Flash
InclusionAI
Seed 2.1 Turbo
ByteDance
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
51.0
#15
42.7
#55
Reasoning
47.5
#26
44.1
#42
Coding
38.8
#18
29.8
#58
Agents
38.0
#12
28.2
#52
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
1 of 1
0 of 1
Input price
— / M
— / M
Output price
— / M
— / M
Context window
—
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Ling 3.1 Flash
Seed 2.1 Turbo
Tool use
29.0#16
19.1#66
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

11 reported for Ling 3.1 Flash · 90 for Seed 2.1 Turbo

1 shared

Ling 3.1 Flash outperforms in 1 benchmarks (CyberGym), while Seed 2.1 Turbo is better at 0 benchmarks.

Ling 3.1 Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Thu Oct 08 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Seed 2.1 Turbo supports multimodal inputs, whereas Ling 3.1 Flash does not.

Seed 2.1 Turbo 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

Seed 2.1 Turbo

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Ling 3.1 Flash was released on 2026-09-30, while Seed 2.1 Turbo was released on 2026-06-24.

Ling 3.1 Flash is 3 months newer than Seed 2.1 Turbo.

Ling 3.1 Flash

Sep 30, 2026

1 weeks ago

3mo newer
Seed 2.1 Turbo

Jun 24, 2026

3 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 Seed 2.1 Turbo side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Ling 3.1 Flash
✓ Preferred
Seed 2.1 Turbo
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Ling 3.1 Flash vs Seed 2.1 Turbo.

Which is better, Ling 3.1 Flash or Seed 2.1 Turbo?

Ling 3.1 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 51.0 to 42.7. Ling 3.1 Flash is made by InclusionAI and Seed 2.1 Turbo is made by ByteDance. 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 Seed 2.1 Turbo in benchmarks?

Ling 3.1 Flash scores CyberGym: 87.9%, DRACO: 85.5%, FrontierSWE: 75.2%, Multi-Challenge: 69.8%, SkillsBench: 68.7%. Seed 2.1 Turbo scores CharXiv-D: 94.6%, MathVision: 92.7%, MathVista: 90.5%, MathVerse: 89.2%, Video-MME: 89.0%.

What are the main differences between Ling 3.1 Flash and Seed 2.1 Turbo?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (51.0 vs 42.7), 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 Seed 2.1 Turbo?

Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by InclusionAI and Seed 2.1 Turbo is developed by ByteDance.

Related comparisons