Ling 3.1 Flash vs Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback)

What the captured data shows

Ling 3.1 Flash is listed at lower token prices than Claude Opus 5.5 and has faster recorded output throughput with a shorter first-token delay. Opus has the higher intelligence index. This is a comparison of the available snapshot values, not a claim that the models give equally reliable results on a particular task.

Which model fits your workflow

Use Ling on a controlled set of tasks and inspect the result before expanding its role. Include examples that currently require Opus and record where Ling needs correction. Keep the Opus fallback configuration attached to the measurement so later comparisons use the same setup.

Decision takeaway

The recorded cost and timing favor Ling, while the aggregate index favors Opus. Accepted task results determine whether the savings are useful.

These figures come from Franklin’s Artificial Analysis-sourced model records captured on 2026-10-11. Read the individual model entries for the data snapshot: Ling 3.1 Flash and Claude Opus 5.5 (Max, Default Fallback). Missing measurements remain unavailable; this page does not report a new hands-on test.