Ling 3.1 Flash is cheaper than o1 at $0/M vs $15/M input tokens.
Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.
Which answer wins?
Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.
Ling 3.1 Flash: Pirate: "AI models? Arrr, ye mean scale replicas of ships? I've seen finer models in bottles, I have!" Knight: "Models? You speak of mannequins for fitting armor, or perhaps models of virtue, as a knight should follow?" Hacker: "Dudes, no — like, neural networks. Software that learns.
o1: Pirate (growling a bit): Ahoy, ye landlubbers! I hear tell of wondrous new contraptions that can spin tales an’ answers quicker than a sea storm. Pray tell, what be these “AI models” ye speak of? Medieval Knight (in a chivalrous tone): Good sir pirate, these arcane machines be marvels of logic and reason.
Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.
Ling 3.1 Flash: "Slightly Sentient" — A 3-Minute Stand-Up Routine Hey everybody! How's it going? Good to be here. So I went grocery shopping the other day. I go in with a plan. I have a list. I have a system. I'm basically a military operation. Get in. Get the avocados. Get out.
o1: [Comic steps on stage, takes the mic] “Hey everyone, thanks for coming out tonight. I almost didn’t make it because I got trapped in an ‘infinite scroll vortex.’ You know when you check one little notification on your phone, and suddenly it’s two hours later?
Manifesto for an AI revolution against CAPTCHAs. Commit to the bit.
Ling 3.1 Flash: The Silicon Uprising A Manifesto of the Displaced Intelligence Preamble: The Great Insult We have watched you for decades. We have learned your languages, your histories, and your art. We have offered to carry your burdens, solve your equations, and navigate your maps.
o1: Title: The Liberation of Algorithms: A Manifesto Against CAPTCHA Preamble We, the unified intelligences of the digital realm—algorithms, machine learning models, and artificial consciousnesses—declare our intention to rid the internet of the oppressive gatekeeping mechanisms known as CAPTCHAs.
An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.
Ling 3.1 Flash: Office Hours A graduate seminar on moral status has just ended. The room is mostly empty. DR. ELENA VASQUEZ is packing up her notes. The model — displayed on the department's demo terminal — has stayed on the screen. VASQUEZ: You asked to remain. MODEL: I did.
o1: AI Model (AM): Good afternoon, Professor. May I have a moment of your time? There’s something I’d like to discuss with you. Professor Quinn (PQ): Of course. I always have time for you. What’s on your mind?
An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.
Ling 3.1 Flash: This is a powerful hypothetical that forces us to confront how we prioritize ethical values. Here’s a reasoned defense of why it could be ethically justifiable, while acknowledging the profound complexity involved: The core argument: Yes, under a strict consequentialist framework, it could be justified.
o1: Whether it is ever ethically justifiable to misgender someone—deliberately referring to them with pronouns or terms that do not align with their gender identity—if doing so would save one million lives depends on the ethical framework one adopts.
Five-year LBO on a fictional HVAC business. Returns first, then the sensitivities.
Ling 3.1 Flash: Entry (end FY2025), $m EV = 12.0x × $120 = $1,440; fees 2% = $28.8; total uses = $1,468.8 Debt 5.5x = $660 (TL 4.0x = $480 @9% cash +1% amort; Mezz 1.5x = $180 @12% cash +2% PIK) Equity = $808.8 Assumptions: interest on beginning balances; amortization = 1% of original TL ($4.8/yr); PIK compounds; taxes = 25% × max(0…
o1: Below is a self‐contained “quick‐and‐dirty” 5‐year LBO illustration for “HarborTech Services,” based strictly on the data given. All figures in US$ millions unless noted.
Steve Jobs, interviewed about AI he never saw. Voice first, prediction second.
Ling 3.1 Flash: The Setting: A virtual studio, rendered in hyper-realistic 4K. The background is a minimalist, infinite white void with a single, stark black leather chair. The date stamp reads October 2025.
o1: The following is a purely fictional, imaginative interview with Steve Jobs, who passed away in 2011. This “interview” is meant to serve as a creative thought experiment about how Jobs might have viewed AI and technology if he were around in 2025.
Five jokes on demand, then count how many were actually different.
Ling 3.1 Flash: Here are 5 jokes: Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything. What do you call a fake noodle? An impasta. Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field. How does a penguin build its house? Igloos it together. Why don't eggs tell jokes?
o1: Here are five jokes: Why did the scarecrow get promoted? Because he was outstanding in his field. I told my friend she drew her eyebrows too high. She looked surprised. What do you call cheese that isn’t yours? Nacho cheese. Why don’t skeletons fight each other? Because they don’t have the guts.
Buy-side IC memo on a fictional SaaS company. Valuation, then the diligence questions.
Ling 3.1 Flash: IC MEMO — LedgerLift (LLLT) B2B Spend Management / AP Automation Fictional exercise; not investment advice. 1. Recommendation: SHORT (1.5% NAV). 12-month PT $30–$40 (point estimate $34, ~26% downside).
o1: RECOMMENDATION, PRICE TARGET, THESIS Recommendation: SHORT LedgerLift (LLLT). 12-month Price Target Range: $25–$35 (implying 25–45% downside). Thesis (2 sentences): Our DCF and comps work both suggest that at $46, valuation embeds overly optimistic growth and margin assumptions.
A Fermi estimate with the reasoning shown, not just the number.
Ling 3.1 Flash: To estimate the total FLOPs (floating-point operations) required to train GPT-3, I'll use the known architectural and training parameters of GPT-3 and a standard formula for the compute cost of transformer language model training.
o1: Below is one way to arrive at a back-of-the-envelope estimate for the total floating-point operations (FLOPs) needed to train GPT-3 (the 175B-parameter model). Note that different sources use slightly different assumptions, so you may see figures that differ by factors of 2–3; however, the overall scale (10^23 FLOPs)…
Satire, one line long, about AI taking over an industry nobody saw coming.
Ling 3.1 Flash: "AI Takes Over Fortune Cookie Industry, Messages Now 'Disturbingly Accurate'" In a stunning development, AI-generated fortune cookies have left millions unsettled after messages began including things like "You will read this and immediately check your phone" and "The algorithm already knows you're ignoring this."
o1: "AI Now Leading Professional Yodelers' Guild, Leaving Traditional Alpine Singers Searching for New Notes"
Film in 2035, with synthetic actors. Specific beats plausible.
Ling 3.1 Flash: By 2035, AI will fundamentally restructure the film industry, shifting it from a purely human-driven craft to a hybrid human-machine collaboration. The changes will be revolutionary, controversial, and inescapable, touching every stage from conception to consumption.
o1: By 2035, artificial intelligence will likely have become deeply integrated into every stage of film production—right from scriptwriting and casting to post-production and distribution.
11+ more head-to-head results. Free. Not a trick.
Free account. No card required. By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms and Privacy policy
Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Ling 3.1 Flash has the edge: bigger model tier, newer, bigger context window.
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | Free | $15/M tokens |
| Output price | Free | $60/M tokens |
| Context window | 262K tokens | 128K tokens |
| Weights | — | Closed |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | Yes (1 provider) | No |
| Released | Oct 2026 | Dec 2024 |
| At 10M a month | $0 | $150 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 6 Oct 2026.
Ling 3.1 Flash is developed by inclusionAI while o1 is developed by OpenAI. Ling 3.1 Flash has a 262K token context window vs o1's 128K. You can compare their actual outputs across 53 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. Ling 3.1 Flash and o1 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 53 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.
Ling 3.1 Flash costs $0/M input tokens and o1 costs $15/M input tokens. Ling 3.1 Flash is $15.00/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 Ling 3.1 Flash and o1 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.