GPT-5.5 vs Ling-3.1-flash
Wins 3 of 5 areas
Coding · Reasoning · Long documents
Wins 1 of 5 areas
Agents
GPT-5.5 is the stronger all-rounder.Ling-3.1-flash is cheaper and better at agents.
Scores updated · 13 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.
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking20GPT-5.52 of 2 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software10GPT-5.51 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10GPT-5.51 of 1 test
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own02Ling-3.1-flash2 of 2 tests
- 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 97% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The three tests each model wins by the widest margin. Scores are out of 100.
Where GPT-5.5 pulls ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+28.9points ahead
- Research-level physics problemsCritPt+9.1points ahead
- Very hard expert questions across many subjectsHumanity's Last Exam+6.4points ahead
Where Ling-3.1-flash pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+51.1points ahead
- Complex command-line tasks across many fieldsTerminal-Bench 4.0+18.7points ahead
- Real work tasks from 44 professionsGDPVal+13.4points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 13 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 18.714.633.3+18.7
- GDPValLing-3.1-flash by 13.442.756.1+13.4
ReasoningGPT-5.5
- CritPtGPT-5.5 by 9.127.118+9.1
- Humanity's Last ExamGPT-5.5 by 6.445.839.4+6.4
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationLing-3.1-flash by 51.11162.1+51.1
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyGPT-5.5 by 28.95829.1+28.9
Other results5 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-OmniscienceGPT-5.5 by 18.320.52.2+18.3
- HealthBench ProfessionalLing-3.1-flash by 13.651.865.3+13.6
- CyberGymLing-3.1-flash by 6.181.887.9+6.1
- Finance Agent v2Ling-3.1-flash by 6.151.857.9+6.1
- AA IntelligenceLing-3.1-flash by 2.738.441.1+2.7
Questions people ask
Which is better, GPT-5.5 or Ling-3.1-flash?
GPT-5.5 wins three of the five areas where both have results: coding, reasoning and long documents. Ling-3.1-flash wins agents, and costs 97% less. They are level on facts.
Which is better for coding?
GPT-5.5. It wins the one coding test both models report.
Which is cheaper?
GPT-5.5 costs $5.00 per million input tokens and $30.00 per million output tokens; Ling-3.1-flash costs $0.30 and $0.90. That makes Ling-3.1-flash about 97% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 13 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 5 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.