Ling 3.1 Flash vs Llama 4 Scout
InclusionAI (Ant Group) · China | Meta · US · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick Ling 3.1 Flash for hybrid-reasoning moe — 560b total parameters, ~25b active per token, aimed at agents, tool use, and long-document work or artificial analysis intelligence index score of 41 — above average for its price tier. Pick Llama 4 Scout for largest advertised context (10m) or open weights, single-gpu friendly. Choose Llama 4 Scout if you need self-hosting or data privacy; Ling 3.1 Flash if you want a managed API.
Ling 3.1 Flash (InclusionAI (Ant Group), China) and Llama 4 Scout (Meta, US) line up two different AI ecosystems against each other — a comparison that is as much about cost philosophy and openness as raw capability. Ling 3.1 Flash is inclusionAI's (Ant Group) September 30, 2026 hybrid-reasoning MoE model — 560B parameters aimed at agents and long documents, launched as a free trial with weights still unreleased. Llama 4 Scout is the 10M-token open-weight giant — enormous on paper, but usable recall is far smaller. They diverge most on price, context window and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences at a glance
- ▸Cost model: Llama 4 Scout ships open weights you can self-host (hardware cost only, no per-token fee), while Ling 3.1 Flash is API-metered at $0.3/$0.9 per 1M tokens. Your choice depends on whether you want zero marginal cost at the price of running infrastructure.
- ▸Context window: Llama 4 Scout holds 38× more — 10M (~15,000 pages) vs 262K tokens (~393 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
- ▸Recency: Ling 3.1 Flash is the newer model by about 18 months (released September 30, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
- ▸Ecosystem: this is a China-vs-US matchup — they differ in pricing philosophy, data-residency options, and tooling ecosystems, not only benchmarks.
Side-by-side specs
| Spec | Ling 3.1 Flash | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | InclusionAI (Ant Group) (China) | Meta (US) |
| Released | September 30, 2026 | April 2025 |
| Context window | 262K tokens (~393 pages) | 10M (~15,000 pages) |
| Price (in/out) | $0.3/$0.9 per 1M tokens | Open weight (self-host / free) |
| Open weight? | No — API only | Yes — self-hostable |
| Modalities | text, code | text, image, code |
| SWE-Bench Verified | Not published | Not published |
| MRCR v2 @ 1M | Not published | 15% |
Who wins what
Hybrid-reasoning MoE — 560B total parameters, ~25B active per token, aimed at agents, tool use, and long-document work
Ling 3.1 Flash
Llama 4 Scout is comparatively weak here — ~15% on long-context multi-needle reasoning
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index score of 41 — above average for its price tier
Ling 3.1 Flash
InclusionAI's (Ant Group) September 30, 2026 hybrid-reasoning MoE model — 560B parameters aimed at agents and long documents, launched as a free trial with weights still unreleased — and it is the newer of the two.
First-party pricing of $0.30/$0.90 per million tokens, with an 80% cache-read discount ($0.06/MTok)
Ling 3.1 Flash
Ling 3.1 Flash lists first-party pricing of $0.30/$0.90 per million tokens, with an 80% cache-read discount ($0.06/MTok) among its strengths; Llama 4 Scout does not.
Largest advertised context (10M)
Llama 4 Scout
Its 10M window holds about 38× more than Ling 3.1 Flash's 262K tokens in a single prompt.
Open weights, single-GPU friendly
Llama 4 Scout
Open weights make this possible at all — Ling 3.1 Flash is API-only, so it cannot leave the vendor's servers.
Self-hosted, data-private deployment
Llama 4 Scout
The 10M-token open-weight giant — enormous on paper, but usable recall is far smaller — and it carries the larger 10M context.
Lowest cost at scale
Llama 4 Scout
Its weights are open, so at volume you pay for your own hardware instead of Ling 3.1 Flash's $0.3/$0.9 per 1M tokens.
Largest single-prompt input
Llama 4 Scout
Its 10M window is about 38× larger than Ling 3.1 Flash's 262K tokens, fitting roughly 15,000 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ Llama 4 Scout
At Open weight (self-host / free) it undercuts Ling 3.1 Flash, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases
→ Llama 4 Scout
Larger 10M window fits more in one prompt.
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs
→ Llama 4 Scout
Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; Ling 3.1 Flash is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is hybrid-reasoning moe — 560b total parameters, ~25b active per token, aimed at agents, tool use, and long-document work
→ Ling 3.1 Flash
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is largest advertised context (10m)
→ Llama 4 Scout
That is its strongest area.
An enterprise with regional data-residency rules
→ Llama 4 Scout or Ling 3.1 Flash
Origin (China vs US) affects where data is processed and which compliance regime applies — check the provider's terms for your region.
Ling 3.1 Flash: where it fits
InclusionAI's (Ant Group) September 30, 2026 hybrid-reasoning MoE model — 560B parameters aimed at agents and long documents, launched as a free trial with weights still unreleased. Released September 30, 2026 by InclusionAI (Ant Group), it is built for hybrid-reasoning MoE — 560B total parameters, ~25B active per token, aimed at agents, tool use, and long-document work, artificial Analysis Intelligence Index score of 41 — above average for its price tier, first-party pricing of $0.30/$0.90 per million tokens, with an 80% cache-read discount ($0.06/MTok), and predecessor Ling 3.0 Flash shipped MIT-licensed open weights, suggesting a similar path once 3.1 clears review.
Its trade-offs are real: shipped as an announcement plus a two-week free trial rather than a full release — no weights, no model card, and limited independent verification at launch, context window currently served at 262K tokens even though InclusionAI's stated target is 1M — the larger window isn't live yet, not yet open-weight despite InclusionAI saying it plans to open-source the model 'soon', and announced via WeChat rather than a formal English-language technical report, so some specs are vendor-reported only. At $0.3 in / $0.9 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
Llama 4 Scout: where it fits
The 10M-token open-weight giant — enormous on paper, but usable recall is far smaller. Released April 2025 by Meta, it is built for largest advertised context (10M), open weights, single-GPU friendly, self-hosted, data-private deployment, and retrieval over very long inputs.
Its trade-offs: effective recall degrades far below 10M, and ~15% on long-context multi-needle reasoning. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.
The bottom line for this matchup
The defining split here is open vs. closed. Llama 4 Scout gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. Ling 3.1 Flash gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.
Want both Ling 3.1 Flash and Llama 4 Scout without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.
See pricingFrequently asked questions
Is Ling 3.1 Flash or Llama 4 Scout better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Ling 3.1 Flash leans toward hybrid-reasoning moe — 560b total parameters, ~25b active per token, aimed at agents, tool use, and long-document work while Llama 4 Scout leans toward largest advertised context (10m), and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Ling 3.1 Flash or Llama 4 Scout?
Llama 4 Scout is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while Ling 3.1 Flash is API-metered at $0.3/$0.9 per 1M tokens. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.
Which has the bigger context window?
Llama 4 Scout — 10M vs 262K tokens, about 38× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both Ling 3.1 Flash and Llama 4 Scout together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Ling 3.1 Flash, Llama 4 Scout and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Ling 3.1 Flash or Llama 4 Scout?
Ling 3.1 Flash — released September 30, 2026, about 18 months after Llama 4 Scout.
Related comparisons
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.