Skip to content
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Compare
  4. /
  5. Claude Opus 4.1vsLing 3.0 Flash
Updated Jul 2026

Claude Opus 4.1vsLing 3.0 Flash

Ling 3.0 Flash is cheaper than Claude Opus 4.1 at $0.021/M vs $15/M input tokens.

Claude Opus 4.1 and Ling 3.0 Flash compared across 16 shared prompts
SpecClaude Opus 4.1Ling 3.0 Flash
Input price$15/M tokens$0.021/M tokens
Output price$75/M tokens$0.063/M tokens
Context window200K tokens262K tokens
ParametersNot disclosed124B
WeightsClosedOpen
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedAug 2025Jul 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 16 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

Startup Pitch Teardown

Here's a pitch deck summary for a startup called "MindMeld AI": **Slide 1 - Vision:** "We're building the future of human-AI collaboration.…

Claude Opus 4.1396 words
Here are the three weakest claims in the MindMeld AI pitch: "94% accuracy" for EEG-based text prediction (Slide 3) Why it's weak: Current state-of-the-art non-invasive EEG systems struggle to achieve even 70% accuracy for simple binary choices, let alone complex text prediction Academic research shows consumer-grade…
Read the full answer
Ling 3.0 Flash945 words
Three Weakest Claims in the MindMeld AI Pitch Deck "94% Accuracy" — Slide 3 (Solution) Why It's Weak This is presented as a single, impressive number with zero context, which makes it essentially meaningless — and likely misleading. Several critical questions go unanswered: What is the vocabulary size?
Read the full answer

Historical Counterfactual Analysis

If the transistor had been invented in 1920 instead of 1947, trace the likely technological, economic, and geopolitical implications through…

Claude Opus 4.11,201 words
The Transistor Timeline Shift: A Cascade of Consequences The 1920s-1930s: The Foundation Disruption Immediate Technical Revolution With the transistor arriving in 1920, likely from Bell Labs or a European research institution, the first decade would see rapid miniaturization of radio equipment.
Read the full answer
Ling 3.0 Flash3,452 words
The 1920 Transistor: A Counterfactual Cascade Through 1980 This is a rich counterfactual. A 27-year acceleration of the transistor doesn't just move technology forward — it restructures the causal chains of the 20th century.
Read the full answer

Advanced Longevity Plan (Biohacker)

Develop a comprehensive, cutting-edge 3-month longevity plan for a biohacker aiming to optimize longevity, physical and cognitive…

Claude Opus 4.11,265 words
Advanced 3-Month Biohacker Longevity Optimization Protocol Overview & Philosophy This protocol integrates evidence-based interventions targeting the nine hallmarks of aging while optimizing immediate performance metrics.
Read the full answer
Ling 3.0 Flash2,901 words
🧬 THE 90-DAY LONGEVITY OPTIMIZATION BLUEPRINT A Comprehensive Biohacking Protocol for Cellular Renewal, Cognitive Enhancement & Vitality Disclaimer: This protocol is for educational and informational purposes only. Many compounds listed (rapamycin, metformin, etc.) require physician supervision and prescription.
Read the full answer

Michelin Star Recipe Design

Design an innovative recipe for a multi-component dish worthy of a Michelin 3-star restaurant. The recipe should feature an unusual…

Claude Opus 4.1733 words
"Tidal Reverie" White Miso-Aged Hamachi with Coffee Soil, Yuzu Pearls, and Crystallized Seaweed Conceptual Narrative This dish explores the liminal space between land and sea, where morning coffee meets ocean depths.
Read the full answer
Ling 3.0 Flash2,510 words
🍽️ TERRA NUDA — A Study in Forest Petrichor A Six-Component Dish Exploring the Ephemeral Moment After Rain Falls on a Living Forest 📖 CONCEPTUAL NARRATIVE Terra Nuda — Latin for "naked earth" — is inspired by the liminal moment immediately after a summer storm passes through a forest: the air thick with petrichor…
Read the full answer

Beginner's Longevity Plan

Outline a simple, actionable 1-month plan for someone starting their journey towards better health and longevity. Focus on 3 key areas…

Claude Opus 4.1414 words
Your 1-Month Health & Longevity Kickstart Plan Week 1-2: Foundation Building Start small and build consistency with these three pillars: 🥗 NUTRITION: Simple Whole Foods Week 1: Add one serving of vegetables to lunch and dinner (frozen veggies count!)
Read the full answer
Ling 3.0 Flash568 words
🌱 Your 1-Month Health & Longevity Starter Plan 🥦 1. Diet — Nourish, Don't Deprive Week 1: Awareness Keep a food journal — just track what you eat (no judgment). This alone builds mindful eating habits. Add, don't subtract — introduce one extra serving of vegetables per meal.
Read the full answer

Debug This Architecture

Here's the architecture for a real-time collaborative document editor (like Google Docs): **System Overview:** - Frontend: React SPA with…

Claude Opus 4.1538 words
Critical Issues Analysis Split-Brain Real-time Synchronization Problem: Users connected to different API servers experience 2+ second delays due to polling mechanism, creating divergent document states and poor collaboration experience.
Read the full answer
Ling 3.0 Flash2,291 words
Architecture Analysis: Real-Time Collaborative Document Editor WebSocket & Cross-Server Communication Issue: Siloed WebSocket Servers (Critical) Each API server only broadcasts changes to clients connected to that specific server.
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Claude Opus 4.1
Claude Opus 4.1
Ling 3.0 Flash
Ling 3.0 Flash

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, nothing separates them.

Ling 3.0 Flash costs 1190x less per token.

Too close to call

Reviewing agent-written code?See a Brief PR report

API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Claude Opus 4.1
Input
$15.00
Output
$75.00
Ling 3.0 Flash
Input
$0.02
714× cheaper
Output
$0.06
1190× cheaper

Ling 3.0 Flash is cheaper on both: 714× input, 1190× output.

Where to run it

3 hosts, cheapest first

Claude Opus 4.11 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Amazon Bedrock$15.00 in·$75.00 out·200k·100% up
Ling 3.0 Flash2 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
NNovita$0.02 in·$0.06 out·262k·100% upDDeepInfrabf16$0.06 in·$0.18 out·131k·99.7% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 23 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

Claude Opus 4.1 is developed by Anthropic while Ling 3.0 Flash is developed by inclusionAI. Claude Opus 4.1 has a 200K token context window vs Ling 3.0 Flash's 262K. You can compare their actual outputs across 16 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. Claude Opus 4.1 and Ling 3.0 Flash each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 16 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

Claude Opus 4.1 costs $15/M input tokens and Ling 3.0 Flash costs $0.021/M input tokens. Ling 3.0 Flash is $14.98/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Claude Opus 4.1 and Ling 3.0 Flash across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.

Keep exploring

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

Claude Opus 4.1 logoDeepSeek V4 Flash Vision Exp logo
Claude Opus 4.1 vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpLanded Sep 2026
Ling 3.0 Flash logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Ling 3.0 Flash vs Solar Pro 4Landed Sep 2026
Claude Opus 4.1 logoHy3 logo
Claude Opus 4.1 vs Hy3Landed Sep 2026
Ling 3.0 Flash logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Ling 3.0 Flash vs Qwen3.7 FlashLanded Sep 2026
Claude Opus 4.1 logoMuse Glimmer 30B logo
Claude Opus 4.1 vs Muse Glimmer 30BLanded Sep 2026
Ling 3.0 Flash logoGLM 5.3 logo
Ling 3.0 Flash vs GLM 5.3Landed Sep 2026
Claude Opus 4.1 logoTernary Bonsai 2 27B logo
Claude Opus 4.1 vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27BLanded Sep 2026
Ling 3.0 Flash logoGLM 5.3 Flash logo
Ling 3.0 Flash vs GLM 5.3 FlashLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

Claude Opus 4.1 logoClaude Opus 4 logo
Claude Opus 4.1 vs Claude Opus 4Version compare
Claude Opus 4.1 logoClaude Opus 4.6 logo
Claude Opus 4.1 vs Claude Opus 4.6Version compare
Ling 3.0 Flash logoLing 3.0 Flash Fin (free) logo
Ling 3.0 Flash vs Ling 3.0 Flash Fin (free)Same lab
Ling 3.0 Flash logoLing 3.0 Flash Sante (free) logo
Ling 3.0 Flash vs Ling 3.0 Flash Sante (free)Same lab
Ling 3.0 Flash logoMercury logo
Ling 3.0 Flash vs MercuryNew provider
Ling 3.0 Flash logoMercury 2 logo
Ling 3.0 Flash vs Mercury 2New provider
Ling 3.0 Flash logoMercury 2.5 logo
Ling 3.0 Flash vs Mercury 2.5New provider
Ling 3.0 Flash logoMercury 2.5 Preview logo
Ling 3.0 Flash vs Mercury 2.5 PreviewNew provider

Model pages

Claude Opus 4.1 logo
Claude Opus 4.157 outputs, specs and price
Ling 3.0 Flash logo
Ling 3.0 Flash16 outputs, specs and price
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed