Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 vs Qwen 3.8 Flash Next
Pick a route and service tier under each model. Prices, the calculator and the verdicts follow your choice.
At a glance
Generated from the rows below
Choose Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 for
No clear lead on the rows below.
Choose Qwen 3.8 Flash Next for
- The lowest cost per typical request ($0.0004)
- The largest context window: 1,048,576 tokens
- The only one that takes images
Overview
Pricing
Prices on the route and tier chosen under each model
What will it cost?
Estimate a month of requests on the route and tier chosen for each model
Uses the route and tier chosen under each model, over 30 days. Cached input is billed at the cache-read rate.
Performance
Live gateway traffic
Activity
Tokens sent through Phaseo each day over the last 30 days
None of these models has had traffic through Phaseo in the last 30 days.
Features
Features from the parameters Phaseo routes support
Benchmarks
Only results that two or more of the selected models report get a row
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index Independent
Higher is better · each model’s best reported variant
Where they rank
The five leaders on each capability index, then the compared models. Each model at its best-scoring setting.
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index60 models ranked
- #1Claude Fable 5.264.6
- #2Claude Opus 5.559.1
- #3GPT-6 Astra56.9
- #4GPT-6.1 Sol54.6
- #5Claude Sonnet 5.554.5
- #26Ling 3.1 Flash 101929.6
- #28Qwen 3.8 Flash Next28.6
Artificial Analysis Coding Index171 models ranked
- #1Claude Fable 5.181.6
- #2GPT 5.6 Sol78.3
- #3Claude Opus 578.0
- #4GPT-6 Astra77.1
- #5Grok 4.676.8
- #17Qwen 3.8 Flash Next73.1
Artificial Analysis Agentic Index112 models ranked
- #1Claude Fable 5.157.9
- #2Claude Opus 556.5
- #3Qwen 3.8 Max 090256.0
- #4Muse Spark 1.355.5
- #5Qwen 3.8 Flash Next53.6
Lab-reported results come from each lab’s own launch materials and may use different settings, so none is marked best. Independent results come from third-party evaluators.
Providers
Where each model runs on Phaseo, with standard-tier prices per 1M tokens. Providers that serve more of these models come first.
To price the whole page on one of these providers, pick it under the model’s name at the top.
Details
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 vs Qwen 3.8 Flash Next: side-by-side summary
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 is from Inclusion AI. It has a 1,000,000-token context window. On its cheapest route it costs $0.30 per 1M input tokens and $0.90 per 1M output tokens.
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is from Qwen. It has a 1,048,576-token context window. On its cheapest route it costs $0.12 per 1M input tokens and $0.40 per 1M output tokens.
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 model details, providers and pricingQwen 3.8 Flash Next model details, providers and pricing
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 vs Qwen 3.8 Flash Next at a glance
| Attribute | Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 | Qwen 3.8 Flash Next |
|---|---|---|
| Lab | Inclusion AI | Qwen |
| Input price per 1M tokens | $0.30 | $0.12 |
| Output price per 1M tokens | $0.90 | $0.40 |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Max output | 262,144 tokens | Not listed |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index | 29.6 (#26) | 28.6 (#28) |
Prices are each model's cheapest standard route on Phaseo. Benchmark ranks use each model's best-scoring evaluated setting.
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 or Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next is cheaper for both input and output tokens. Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 costs $0.30 per 1M input tokens and $0.90 per 1M output tokens; Qwen 3.8 Flash Next costs $0.12 and $0.40, each on its cheapest standard route on Phaseo.
Which has the longer context window, Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 or Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Qwen 3.8 Flash Next has the longer context window at 1,048,576 tokens, compared with 1,000,000 tokens for Ling 3.1 Flash 1019.
Which scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 or Qwen 3.8 Flash Next?
Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index. Ling 3.1 Flash 1019 scores 29.6, ranked #26 of 60. Qwen 3.8 Flash Next scores 28.6, ranked #28 of 60.