Model vs model
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Ling 3.1 Flash costs 2.2× as much as Claude Haiku 5.5 per 1M tokens blended ($0.45 against $0.20). Its Intelligence Index lead is only 43.9 against 43.4, so price decides, and Claude Haiku 5.5 is the cheaper pick that also accepts images and PDFs. Ling 3.1 Flash is the better choice for scientific coding (SciCode 56.8 against 55) or if you need open weights.
At a glance
Longer bar means the bigger number.
Blended price · per 1M tokens, lower is better
Intelligence Index · Artificial Analysis, higher is better
Context window · tokens it can read at once
Where they sit among all 44 models
Claude Haiku 5.5 ranks 14th of the 43 models with an Intelligence Index, Ling 3.1 Flash 12th. Up and to the left is smarter for less money. Hover or tap a dot for its numbers, then click it to compare that model with Claude Haiku 5.5.
Which one to pick
Pick Claude Haiku 5.5 if
- you want the lower bill ($0.20 vs $0.45 per 1M tokens blended)
- you need a longer context window (1M vs 262K tokens)
- you need to send images and PDFs
Pick Ling 3.1 Flash if
- you want open weights you can run yourself
How smart is each one?
Of the 10 scores both models have, Ling 3.1 Flash is ahead on 3 and Claude Haiku 5.5 on 1, and 6 are within a point.
Every intelligence score we have
Out of 100, higher is better. Claude Haiku 5.5 Ling 3.1 Flash
Overall
Intelligence Index
43.4 · 43.9
By field of work
Finance & accounting
43.945.5Legal
42.3 · 41.6Healthcare & medicine
39.9Ling 3.1 Flash: not scored yet
Economics
51.249.9Engineering
44.9 · 44.3Strategy & operations
40.447.9
Benchmarks
Factual knowledge · SimpleQA
23.8Ling 3.1 Flash: not scored yet
Hard reasoning · Humanity's Last Exam
44.4 · 43.5Scientific coding · SciCode
5556.8Terminal tasks · Terminal-Bench 4.0
32.8 eachLong documents · AA-LCR
82.7 · 82.3
Our tests
Hallucination test · our test, higher means it made up less
92.5Ling 3.1 Flash: not scored yet
Rule that has to last 4 turns · our test, % of tries passed
0Ling 3.1 Flash: not scored yet
Three bullets, no letter e · our test, % of tries passed
100Ling 3.1 Flash: not scored yet
The specs
| Spec | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Ling 3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.10 per 1M | $0.30 per 1M |
| Output price | $0.50 per 1M | $0.90 per 1M |
| Cost per test task | $0.2128 | Not tested |
| Context window | 1M | 262K |
| Max output | 128K | 33K |
| Accepts | Text, Image, PDF | Text |
| Open weights | No | Yes |
| Lab | Anthropic | InclusionAI |
| Released | Oct 2026 | Sep 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jun 2026 | Not published |
Blended price weighs 3 parts input to 1 part output. List prices from models.dev. Cost per test task from Artificial Analysis.
Questions
Is Claude Haiku 5.5 or Ling 3.1 Flash cheaper?
Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper. It charges $0.10 per 1M input tokens and $0.50 per 1M output tokens, against $0.30 and $0.90 for Ling 3.1 Flash. Blended 3 parts input to 1 part output, that is $0.20 against $0.45 per 1M tokens.
Which is smarter, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Ling 3.1 Flash?
They score about the same on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: Claude Haiku 5.5 43.4, Ling 3.1 Flash 43.9. The biggest differences are on SciCode (55 vs 56.8).
Which has the longer context window?
Claude Haiku 5.5 accepts 1M tokens, against 262K for Ling 3.1 Flash.
Can I compare Claude Haiku 5.5 and Ling 3.1 Flash on my own prompt?
Yes. ModelCompare sends one prompt to both models at once and shows each answer side by side with what it cost. You can try it free without an account.
Related comparisons
Where the numbers come from
Intelligence Index and benchmark scores are from Artificial Analysis, at each model’s highest effort, except SimpleQA, which is from Epoch AI, and the Uncensored score, which is from the UGI Leaderboard. The hallucination test is ours: questions with one exact answer, fake evidence pushed against right answers and requests that tempt a model to name packages that don’t exist. Prices are list prices from models.dev. Example answers come from our own test runs. Updated October 25, 2026.