Skip to content
ModelCap

Head-to-head comparison

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Gemini 3.8 Flash (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 4 October 2026

As of 4 October 2026, Gemini 3.8 Flash holds the stronger ModelCap Index position (#7 vs #16); Ling 3.1 Flash is cheaper per output token (Free/1M vs $3.75/1M); and Gemini 3.8 Flash offers the longer context window (1M vs 262K tokens).

Which should you choose?

Choose Gemini 3.8 Flash if…

  • you want the stronger overall ModelCap Index position — #7 against #16 (82.1 vs 78.1 points).
  • you need the longer context window — 1M tokens against 262K.
  • you want provider choice — 2 listed API providers against 1.
  • AA Humanity's Last Exam is your yardstick — 47.8% against 39.4%.

Choose Ling 3.1 Flash if…

  • API cost matters — Free/1M output tokens against $3.75/1M.
  • your workload is prompt-heavy — input tokens cost Free/1M against $0.75/1M.
  • AA Intelligence Index is your yardstick — 41.1 against 40.9.
  • you want the more recently listed model — Ling 3.1 Flash was listed 2 October 2026, Gemini 3.8 Flash 2 September 2026.

Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Ling 3.1 Flash: specs, pricing and context

Specification comparison of Gemini 3.8 Flash and Ling 3.1 Flash
FieldGemini 3.8 FlashGoogleLing 3.1 FlashInclusionAI
ModelCap Index position#7#16
Index score82.178.1
EvidenceMeasuredMeasured
Input price / 1M tokens$0.75Free
Output price / 1M tokens$3.75Free
Context window1M tokens262K tokens
Declared route output cap66K33K
API providers listed21
Weight accessNo linked weightsNo linked weights
Input modalitiesText, Image, Video, File, AudioText
First listed2 September 20262 October 2026
PublisherGoogleInclusionAI

Evidence: 6 public benchmark observations across 6 boards · 1 public benchmark observation across 1 board. Prices are the lowest listed API offer per million tokens observed on the OpenRouter catalogue.

Benchmark scores: Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Public benchmark boards where Gemini 3.8 Flash or Ling 3.1 Flash has a published result
BoardGemini 3.8 FlashLing 3.1 FlashLeads
Arena textArena (LMArena)14951490–1500High—Only one result
Arena codingArena (LMArena)15301522–1538High—Only one result
LMArena AgentLMArena3.0%2.1%–3.8%High—Only one result
ARC-AGI-2ARC Prize Foundation89.2%High—Only one result
ARC-AGI-3ARC Prize Foundation10.4%High—Only one result
AA Intelligence IndexArtificial Analysis40.9High41.1ReasoningLing 3.1 Flash
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Artificial Analysis87.6%High—Only one result
AA Humanity's Last ExamArtificial Analysis47.8%High39.4%ReasoningGemini 3.8 Flash
Terminal-Bench 4.0Terminal-Bench (Laude Institute)19.1%15.7%–22.5%mini-SWE-agent · High—Only one result

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 3.8 Flash vs Ling 3.1 Flash: common questions

Is Gemini 3.8 Flash better than Ling 3.1 Flash?

Gemini 3.8 Flash ranks higher on the ModelCap Index as of 4 October 2026: #7 against #16. 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 3.8 Flash cheaper than Ling 3.1 Flash?

Ling 3.1 Flash is cheaper on output tokens: Free/1M against $3.75/1M. Input tokens are $0.75/1M for Gemini 3.8 Flash 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 $3.38 for Gemini 3.8 Flash 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 3.8 Flash or Ling 3.1 Flash?

Gemini 3.8 Flash 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 3.8 Flash 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 3.8 Flash and Ling 3.1 Flash open-weight models?

Gemini 3.8 Flash: 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 3.8 Flash and Ling 3.1 Flash?

ModelCap currently lists 2 API providers for Gemini 3.8 Flash 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 3.8 Flash vs Ling 3.1 Flash comparison?

Every figure and ModelCap Index position comes from the same published snapshot dated 4 October 2026. Publication and page updates happen separately; use the snapshot date shown on the page.

Explore further