Ling-3.1-flash vs Muse Spark 1.1
Wins 2 of 6 areas
Agents · Long documents
Wins 2 of 6 areas
Coding · Following instructions
The two are evenly matched.Ling-3.1-flash is better at agents and long documents; Muse Spark 1.1 at coding and following instructions.
Scores updated · 14 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the six 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 own20Ling-3.1-flash2 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Ling-3.1-flash1 of 1 test
- CodingWriting and fixing software01Muse Spark 1.11 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked01Muse Spark 1.11 of 1 test
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking11Even1 each
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
Coding, long documents and following instructions 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 78% 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
- Complex command-line tasks across many fieldsTerminal-Bench 4.0+27.2points ahead
- Real work tasks from 44 professionsGDPVal+20.4points ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+12.1points ahead
Where Muse Spark 1.1 pulls ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+23points ahead
- Very hard expert questions across many subjectsHumanity's Last Exam+6.8points ahead
- Keeps track of context across a multi-turn chatMulti-Challenge+5.5points 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 27.233.36.1+27.2
- GDPValLing-3.1-flash by 20.456.135.7+20.4
ReasoningEven
- Humanity's Last ExamMuse Spark 1.1 by 6.839.446.2+6.8
- CritPtLing-3.1-flash by 2.91815.1+2.9
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyMuse Spark 1.1 by 2329.152+23
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationLing-3.1-flash by 12.162.150+12.1
Following instructionsMuse Spark 1.1
- Multi-ChallengeMuse Spark 1.1 by 5.569.875.3+5.5
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.
- CyberGymLing-3.1-flash by 28.987.959+28.9
- AA-OmniscienceMuse Spark 1.1 by 25.92.228.1+25.9
- AA IntelligenceLing-3.1-flash by 7.441.133.7+7.4
- HealthBench ProfessionalLing-3.1-flash by 6.165.359.3+6.1
- Finance Agent v2tie57.957.2tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, Ling-3.1-flash or Muse Spark 1.1?
Ling-3.1-flash and Muse Spark 1.1 each win two of the six areas where both have results. Ling-3.1-flash wins agents and long documents; Muse Spark 1.1 wins coding and following instructions. Ling-3.1-flash costs 78% less. They are level on reasoning and facts.
Which is better for coding?
Muse Spark 1.1. It wins the one coding test both models report.
Which is cheaper?
Ling-3.1-flash costs $0.30 per million input tokens and $0.90 per million output tokens; Muse Spark 1.1 costs $1.25 and $4.25. That makes Ling-3.1-flash about 78% 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 9 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.