Ling-3.1-flash wins more areas, narrowly.Claude Opus 4.8 is better at reasoning.
Scores updated · 14 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the five areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own02Ling-3.1-flash2 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts01Ling-3.1-flash1 of 1 test
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking20Claude Opus 4.82 of 2 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software00Even0 each · 1 tie
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
Coding and long documents rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
Ling-3.1-flash costs 96% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The three tests each model wins by the widest margin. Scores are out of 100.
Where Ling-3.1-flash pulls ahead
Where Claude Opus 4.8 pulls ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+19.7points ahead
- Very hard expert questions across many subjectsHumanity's Last Exam+9.3points ahead
- Research-level physics problemsCritPt+2.9points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 14 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
AgentsLing-3.1-flash
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Ling-3.1-flash by 11.621.733.3+11.6
- GDPValLing-3.1-flash by 8.347.856.1+8.3
ReasoningClaude Opus 4.8
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Opus 4.8 by 9.348.739.4+9.3
- CritPtClaude Opus 4.8 by 2.920.918+2.9
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Opus 4.8 by 19.748.829.1+19.7
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationLing-3.1-flash by 1.460.762.1+1.4
Other results6 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- AA-OmniscienceClaude Opus 4.8 by 26.628.82.2+26.6
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Ling-3.1-flash by 16.823.640.4+16.8
- HealthBench ProfessionalLing-3.1-flash by 9.655.865.3+9.6
- CyberGymLing-3.1-flash by 9.178.887.9+9.1
- Finance Agent v2Ling-3.1-flash by 453.957.9+4
- AA Intelligencetie41.841.1tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Ling-3.1-flash?
Ling-3.1-flash wins two of the five areas where both have results: agents and long documents. Claude Opus 4.8 wins reasoning. They are level on coding and facts.
Which is better for coding?
Neither. All 1 coding tests both models report are ties.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Opus 4.8 costs $5.00 per million input tokens and $25.00 per million output tokens; Ling-3.1-flash costs $0.30 and $0.90. That makes Ling-3.1-flash about 96% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 14 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 8 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 6 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.