Skip to content
ModelCap

Head-to-head comparison

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite (Google) and Ling 3.1 Flash (InclusionAI) compared on the ModelCap Index, API price, context window, provider availability, weight access and every public benchmark board they share. Figures are the same ones shown on the live rankings; nothing here is a hidden score.

Snapshot as of 12 October 2026

As of 12 October 2026, Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite holds the stronger ModelCap Index position (#32 vs #34); Ling 3.1 Flash is cheaper per output token (Free/1M vs $2.50/1M); and Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite offers the longer context window (1M vs 262K tokens).

Which should you choose?

Choose Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite if…

  • you want the stronger overall ModelCap Index position — #32 against #34 (72.6 vs 71.6 points).
  • you need the longer context window — 1M tokens against 262K.
  • you want provider choice — 2 listed API providers against 1.

Choose Ling 3.1 Flash if…

  • API cost matters — Free/1M output tokens against $2.50/1M.
  • your workload is prompt-heavy — input tokens cost Free/1M against $0.30/1M.
  • AA Intelligence Index is your yardstick — 41.1 against 22.2.
  • AA Humanity's Last Exam is your yardstick — 39.4% against 18.8%.
  • you want the more recently listed model — Ling 3.1 Flash was listed 2 October 2026, Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite 21 July 2026.

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite vs Ling 3.1 Flash: specs, pricing and context

Specification comparison of Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite and Ling 3.1 Flash
FieldGemini 3.5 Flash LiteGoogleLing 3.1 FlashInclusionAI
ModelCap Index position#32#34
Index score72.671.6
EvidenceMeasuredEstimated
Input price / 1M tokens$0.30Free
Output price / 1M tokens$2.50Free
Context window1M tokens262K tokens
Declared route output cap66K236K
API providers listed21
Weight accessNo linked weightsNo linked weights
Input modalitiesText, Image, Video, File, AudioText
First listed21 July 20262 October 2026
PublisherGoogleInclusionAI

Evidence: 3 public benchmark observations across 3 boards · 1 reported rows against measured corpus ladders (69%); global-corpus-prior over 211 held-out anchors (31%); shrunk 7.8 toward the measured corpus. Prices are the lowest listed API offer per million tokens observed on the OpenRouter catalogue.

Benchmark scores: Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Public benchmark boards where Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite or Ling 3.1 Flash has a published result
BoardGemini 3.5 Flash LiteLing 3.1 FlashLeads
Arena textArena (LMArena)14551451–1460Not reported—Only one result
Arena codingArena (LMArena)15021495–1509—Only one result
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize Foundation10.3%High—Only one result
AA Intelligence IndexArtificial Analysis22.2Reasoning41.1ReasoningLing 3.1 Flash
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Artificial Analysis53.6%Reasoning—Only one result
AA Humanity's Last ExamArtificial Analysis18.8%Reasoning39.4%ReasoningLing 3.1 Flash

Scores are the sources' own published figures for each model's best evaluated configuration; ModelCap never re-runs a benchmark.

Want a different pairing? Open the interactive comparison tool to swap either model for any current ranked language model.

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite vs Ling 3.1 Flash: common questions

Is Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite better than Ling 3.1 Flash?

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite ranks higher on the ModelCap Index as of 12 October 2026: #32 against #34. That is a capability ranking built from public benchmark evidence with published uncertainty; whether it is "better" for you also depends on price, context and where you can run it. Their published uncertainty intervals overlap, so the rank difference alone does not establish a reliable capability advantage for your workload.

Is Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite cheaper than Ling 3.1 Flash?

Ling 3.1 Flash is cheaper on output tokens: Free/1M against $2.50/1M. Input tokens are $0.30/1M for Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite and Free/1M for Ling 3.1 Flash. Prices are the lowest listed API offer ModelCap observed, in USD per million tokens. For 1,000 requests with 2,000 input and 500 output tokens each (2M input + 0.5M output), the listed-rate estimate is $1.85 for Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite versus $0 for Ling 3.1 Flash. Ling 3.1 Flash costs 100.0% less in this scenario. This excludes caching, batch discounts, prompt-length tiers, tool charges and retries; verify the selected endpoint before budgeting.

Which has the bigger context window, Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite or Ling 3.1 Flash?

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite has the larger context window: 1M tokens against 262K. OpenRouter catalogue or provider-endpoint declaration. Limits can vary by provider and prompt length; a model-wide maximum has not been independently verified.

Which is better for coding, Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite or Ling 3.1 Flash?

The two models do not share a coding benchmark board on ModelCap yet, so no head-to-head coding score is published; the ModelCap Index position is the closest overall signal.

Are Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite and Ling 3.1 Flash open-weight models?

Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite: No linked weights. Ling 3.1 Flash: No linked weights. Open weights mean the checkpoint can be downloaded and self-hosted under its licence. A missing weight link does not identify every API or chat product that offers a model.

Where can I run Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite and Ling 3.1 Flash?

ModelCap currently lists 2 API providers for Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite and 1 for Ling 3.1 Flash, from the OpenRouter catalogue snapshot the site serves; each model page lists the providers and their prices.

How current is this Gemini 3.5 Flash Lite vs Ling 3.1 Flash comparison?

Every figure and ModelCap Index position comes from the same published snapshot dated 12 October 2026. Publication and page updates happen separately; use the snapshot date shown on the page.

Explore further