Model decision surface
Compare AI models
Start with DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and Ling 3.1 Flash, or choose any two current ranked language models. Compare capability evidence, price, context, provider availability, and weight access without pretending one field decides every use case.
Current public data
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Live dataset updated 10/4/2026, 9:54:47 AM UTC
Open 1200×630 evidence receipt| Field | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash DeepSeek | Ling 3.1 Flash InclusionAI |
|---|---|---|
| ModelCap position | #15 | #16 |
| Index score | 78.5 | 78.1 |
| Evidence | Measured4 public benchmark observations across 4 boards | Measured1 public benchmark observation across 1 board |
| Input / 1M | $0.0030 | Free |
| Output / 1M | $2.40 | Free |
| Pricing status | fresh | fresh |
| Context | 1M | 262K |
| Providers | 28 | 1 |
| Weight access | Open weights | No linked weights |
Decision facts
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is #15; Ling 3.1 Flash is #16 on the same current language board.
- Index scores are 78.5 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and 78.1 for Ling 3.1 Flash. Their published uncertainty intervals overlap, so the rank difference alone does not establish a reliable capability advantage for your workload.
- Both positions use Measured evidence.
- Listed output price per 1M tokens is $2.40 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and $0 for Ling 3.1 Flash. For 1,000 requests with 2,000 input and 500 output tokens each (2M input + 0.5M output), the listed-rate estimate is $1.21 for DeepSeek V4.1 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.
- Published context is 1,048,576 tokens for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and 262,144 for Ling 3.1 Flash.
- Weight access differs: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is open; Ling 3.1 Flash is none.
- ModelCap currently lists 28 providers for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash and 1 for Ling 3.1 Flash.
These are separate published fields, not a synthetic winner. ModelCap does not collapse price, access, context, and capability evidence into a hidden recommendation score.
Popular comparisons
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Opus 5.5#2 vs #1 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs Muse Spark 1.3#1 vs #3 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Muse Spark 1.3#2 vs #3 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6.1 Sol#1 vs #4 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6.1 Sol#2 vs #4 on the ModelCap Index
- Muse Spark 1.3 vs GPT-6.1 Sol#3 vs #4 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs GPT-6 Astra#1 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs GPT-6 Astra#2 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Muse Spark 1.3 vs GPT-6 Astra#3 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- GPT-6.1 Sol vs GPT-6 Astra#4 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5#1 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5#2 vs #6 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Muse Spark 1.3#6 vs #3 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs GPT-6.1 Sol#6 vs #4 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs GPT-6 Astra#6 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash#1 vs #7 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash#2 vs #7 on the ModelCap Index
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.3#7 vs #3 on the ModelCap Index
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GPT-6.1 Sol#7 vs #4 on the ModelCap Index
- Gemini 3.8 Flash vs GPT-6 Astra#7 vs #5 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Gemini 3.8 Flash#6 vs #7 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Opus 5.5 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro#1 vs #8 on the ModelCap Index
- Claude Fable 5.1 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro#2 vs #8 on the ModelCap Index
- Muse Spark 1.3 vs MiMo-V2.6-Pro#3 vs #8 on the ModelCap Index
Each comparison page is a permanent, shareable URL with the same live figures as this tool: ModelCap Index position, API pricing, context window, provider count, weight access and every shared benchmark board.