DeepSeek-V4-Pro vs Ling-3.1-flash
Wins 0 of 5 areas
—
Wins 4 of 5 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Long documents
Ling-3.1-flash is the stronger all-rounder.
Scores updated · 12 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
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking02Ling-3.1-flash2 of 2 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software01Ling-3.1-flash1 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts01Ling-3.1-flash1 of 1 test
- 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 8% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Ling-3.1-flash pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+56.2points ahead
- Real work tasks from 44 professionsGDPVal+23.2points ahead
- Complex command-line tasks across many fieldsTerminal-Bench 4.0+18.7points ahead
Where DeepSeek-V4-Pro pulls ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+13.9points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 12 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
AgentsLing-3.1-flash
- GDPValLing-3.1-flash by 23.232.956.1+23.2
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Ling-3.1-flash by 18.714.633.3+18.7
ReasoningLing-3.1-flash
- CritPtLing-3.1-flash by 5.112.918+5.1
- Humanity's Last ExamLing-3.1-flash by 1.937.539.4+1.9
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationLing-3.1-flash by 56.25.962.1+56.2
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyDeepSeek-V4-Pro by 13.94329.1+13.9
Other results4 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.
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Ling-3.1-flash by 2812.440.4+28
- AA-OmniscienceLing-3.1-flash by 12.9-10.72.2+12.9
- AA IntelligenceLing-3.1-flash by 10.730.441.1+10.7
- CyberGymLing-3.1-flash by 4.683.387.9+4.6
Questions people ask
Which is better, DeepSeek-V4-Pro or Ling-3.1-flash?
Ling-3.1-flash wins four of the five areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning and long documents. DeepSeek-V4-Pro wins none. They are level on facts.
Which is better for coding?
Ling-3.1-flash. It wins the one coding test both models report.
Which is cheaper?
DeepSeek-V4-Pro costs $0.43 per million input tokens and $0.87 per million output tokens; Ling-3.1-flash costs $0.30 and $0.90. That makes Ling-3.1-flash about 8% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 12 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 4 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.