Model vs model
Ling 3.1 Flash vs Trinity Large Thinking
Ling 3.1 Flash suits teams that need strong long-document and coding quality. Trinity Large Thinking suits high-volume work where cost matters more than top scores. Ling 3.1 Flash leads on the Intelligence Index, 43.9 to 10.8, and on AA-LCR, 82.3 to 38, at $0.45 per 1M tokens blended against $0.39.
At a glance
Longer bar means the bigger number.
Blended price · per 1M tokens, lower is better
Intelligence Index · Artificial Analysis, higher is better
Where they sit among all 44 models
Ling 3.1 Flash ranks 12th of the 43 models with an Intelligence Index, Trinity Large Thinking 40th. 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 Ling 3.1 Flash.
Which one to pick
Pick Ling 3.1 Flash if
- you want the higher overall score (43.9 vs 10.8)
- you care about AA-LCR (long documents): 82.3 vs 38
- you care about Terminal-Bench 4.0 (terminal tasks): 32.8 vs 0.5
Pick Trinity Large Thinking if
- you want the lower bill ($0.39 vs $0.45 per 1M tokens blended)
How smart is each one?
Of the 10 scores both models have, Ling 3.1 Flash is ahead on every one.
Every intelligence score we have
Out of 100, higher is better. Ling 3.1 Flash Trinity Large Thinking
Overall
Intelligence Index
43.910.8
By area
Coding
25.8Ling 3.1 Flash: not scored yet
Agentic work
1Ling 3.1 Flash: not scored yet
By field of work
Finance & accounting
45.510.5Legal
41.611.3Economics
49.916.6Engineering
44.316.2Strategy & operations
47.96.7
Benchmarks
Hard reasoning · Humanity's Last Exam
43.515.8Science · GPQA Diamond
75.2Ling 3.1 Flash: not scored yet
Scientific coding · SciCode
56.840.6Terminal tasks · Terminal-Bench 4.0
32.80.5Tool use · τ-Bench Banking
5.8Ling 3.1 Flash: not scored yet
Instruction following · IFBench
56.3Ling 3.1 Flash: not scored yet
Long documents · AA-LCR
82.338
The specs
| Spec | Ling 3.1 Flash | Trinity Large Thinking |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.30 per 1M | $0.25 per 1M |
| Output price | $0.90 per 1M | $0.80 per 1M |
| Cost per test task | Not tested | Not tested |
| Context window | 262K | 262K |
| Max output | 33K | 80K |
| Accepts | Text | Text |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| Lab | InclusionAI | Arcee AI |
| Released | Sep 2026 | Apr 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Not published | Not published |
Blended price weighs 3 parts input to 1 part output. List prices from models.dev.
Questions
Is Ling 3.1 Flash or Trinity Large Thinking cheaper?
Trinity Large Thinking is cheaper. It charges $0.25 per 1M input tokens and $0.80 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 $0.39 against $0.45 per 1M tokens.
Which is smarter, Ling 3.1 Flash or Trinity Large Thinking?
Ling 3.1 Flash scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 43.9 against 10.8 for Trinity Large Thinking. The biggest differences are on AA-LCR (82.3 vs 38) and Terminal-Bench 4.0 (32.8 vs 0.5).
Which has the longer context window?
Both accept about 262K tokens.
Can I compare Ling 3.1 Flash and Trinity Large Thinking 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.