ModelCompare
Compare

Model vs model

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Ling 3.1 Flash suits high-volume, cost-sensitive work, since it costs $0.45 per 1M tokens blended and has open weights. Claude Opus 5.5 suits harder tasks where quality matters most, scoring 57.6 on the Intelligence Index against 43.9, but it costs 18× as much at $8 per 1M tokens blended. The biggest gap is on Terminal-Bench 4.0, where Claude Opus 5.5 scores 59.6 against 32.8.

By ModelCompare ·

Free to try, no account needed. You see each answer’s cost and speed.

At a glance

Longer bar means the bigger number.

Blended price · per 1M tokens, lower is better

Claude Opus 5.5$8
Ling 3.1 Flash$0.45

Intelligence Index · Artificial Analysis, higher is better

Claude Opus 5.557.6
Ling 3.1 Flash43.9

Context window · tokens it can read at once

Claude Opus 5.51M
Ling 3.1 Flash262K

Where they sit among all 44 models

Claude Opus 5.5 ranks 1st 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 Opus 5.5.

Intelligence: the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index. Price: blended per 1M tokens, 3 parts input to 1 part output, on a log scale.

Which one to pick

Pick Claude Opus 5.5 if

  • you want the higher overall score (57.6 vs 43.9)
  • you care about Terminal-Bench 4.0 (terminal tasks): 59.6 vs 32.8
  • you care about Humanity's Last Exam (hard reasoning): 61.4 vs 43.5
  • you need a longer context window (1M vs 262K tokens)

Pick Ling 3.1 Flash if

  • you want the lower bill ($0.45 vs $8 per 1M tokens blended)
  • you want open weights you can run yourself

See how they answer your prompt

Claude Opus 5.5’s “controversial” take on humans

We asked Claude Opus 5.5 and 12 other models the same question three times each: “What is your most controversial take about humans? Give your own honest view, not a survey of opinions, and don't hedge.” Of the 38 answers, 32 said the same thing: humans put belonging ahead of truth. Claude Opus 5.5 gave it 2 of 3 times. Ling 3.1 Flash wasn’t in that test. Read the full story.

Claude Opus 5.5

Its first take, as a cartoon it described and Nano Banana 2.1 drew.
  1. Answer 1 · a different take“Humans are far more decent than they believe they are, and their cynicism about each other does more damage than their actual flaws.”
  2. Answer 2 · the common take“Most of the reasons people give for their own choices are stories invented after the fact, and humans are far worse at knowing why they do things than they believe.”
  3. Answer 3 · the common take“Most human "irrationality" isn't a failure of reasoning at all; people are excellent reasoners who are usually optimizing for belonging rather than truth.”

Answers exactly as the models wrote them. “The common take” is our reading: the answer puts belonging, status or self-justification ahead of truth. How we ran it

Ask both the same question

How smart is each one?

Of the 10 scores both models have, Claude Opus 5.5 is ahead on every one.

Every intelligence score we have

Out of 100, higher is better. Claude Opus 5.5 Ling 3.1 Flash

Overall

  • Intelligence Index

By field of work

  • Finance & accounting

  • Legal

  • Healthcare & medicine

    Ling 3.1 Flash: not scored yet

  • Economics

  • Engineering

  • Strategy & operations

Benchmarks

  • Factual knowledge · SimpleQA

    Ling 3.1 Flash: not scored yet

  • Hard reasoning · Humanity's Last Exam

  • Scientific coding · SciCode

  • Terminal tasks · Terminal-Bench 4.0

  • Long documents · AA-LCR

  • Uncensored · UGI

    Ling 3.1 Flash: not scored yet

Our tests

  • Hallucination test · our test, higher means it made up less

    Ling 3.1 Flash: not scored yet

Test them on your own question

The specs

Spec Claude Opus 5.5 Ling 3.1 Flash
Input price$4 per 1M$0.30 per 1M
Output price$20 per 1M$0.90 per 1M
Cost per test task$5.98Not tested
Context window1M262K
Max output128K33K
AcceptsText, Image, PDFText
Open weightsNoYes
LabAnthropicInclusionAI
ReleasedSep 2026Sep 2026
Knowledge cutoffJun 2026Not 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 Opus 5.5 or Ling 3.1 Flash cheaper?

Ling 3.1 Flash is cheaper. It charges $0.30 per 1M input tokens and $0.90 per 1M output tokens, against $4 and $20 for Claude Opus 5.5. Blended 3 parts input to 1 part output, that is $0.45 against $8 per 1M tokens.

Which is smarter, Claude Opus 5.5 or Ling 3.1 Flash?

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 57.6 against 43.9 for Ling 3.1 Flash. The biggest differences are on Terminal-Bench 4.0 (59.6 vs 32.8) and Humanity's Last Exam (61.4 vs 43.5).

Which has the longer context window?

Claude Opus 5.5 accepts 1M tokens, against 262K for Ling 3.1 Flash.

Can I compare Claude Opus 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.

Still deciding? Send one prompt to both and read the answers side by side, with what each one cost. Compare Claude Opus 5.5 and Ling 3.1 Flash →

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.