Skip to content

Apodex 1.1 Mini (free) vs Ling 3.1 Flash

vs
Ling 3.1 Flash

inclusionai

40#238
Signal-by-Signal Comparison
SignalApodex 1.1 Mini (free)DeltaLing 3.1 Flash
Capabilities
67
+17
50
Pricing
100
--
100
Context window size
86
--
86
Recency
100
--
100
Output Capacity
86
+14
72
Overall Result
2 wins
of 5
0 wins
Apodex 1.1 Mini (free) wins 2 of 5 signals

Score History Unavailable

Not enough historical data to show a comparison chart. Score history is recorded weekly and will be available after at least two data points are collected.

40

Apodex 1.1 Mini (free)

vs

40

Ling 3.1 Flash

Interactive Price Comparison
100Kcalls/month
1,000tokens (~1,333 chars)
500tokens (~667 chars)

Apodex 1.1 Mini (free)

apodex

Per request$0.000000
Daily$0.00
Monthly$0.00
Annual$0.00

Ling 3.1 Flash

inclusionai

Per request$0.000000
Daily$0.00
Monthly$0.00
Annual$0.00
Apodex 1.1 Mini (free) pricing:
Input:$0.00/M tokens
Output:$0.00/M tokens
Ling 3.1 Flash pricing:
Input:$0.00/M tokens
Output:$0.00/M tokens
Tie
Apodex 1.1 Mini (free)

apodex

40

Composite Score

Tie
Ling 3.1 Flash

inclusionai

40

Composite Score

Signal-by-Signal Comparison
MetricApodex 1.1 Mini (free)Ling 3.1 FlashWinner
Overall Score
40
40
--
Rank#239#238
Ling 3.1 Flash
Quality Rank#239#238
Ling 3.1 Flash
Adoption Rank#239#238
Ling 3.1 Flash
Parameters------
Context Window262K262K--
PricingFreeFree--
Signal Scores
Capabilities
67
50
Apodex 1.1 Mini (free)
Pricing
100
100
Apodex 1.1 Mini (free)
Context window size
86
86
Apodex 1.1 Mini (free)
Recency
100
100
Apodex 1.1 Mini (free)
Output Capacity
86
72
Apodex 1.1 Mini (free)
Benchmark Interpretation

Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.

Apodex 1.1 Mini (free)Entry Level

Scores 40/100 (rank #239), placing it in the top 18% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100
Ling 3.1 FlashEntry Level

Scores 40/100 (rank #238), placing it in the top 18% of all 290 models tracked.

Raw Quality0/100
Cost Efficiency0/100
Speed0/100

With only a 0-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.

When to Use Each Model

Choose Apodex 1.1 Mini (free) when you need:

  • Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving

Choose Ling 3.1 Flash when you need:

  • Step-by-step reasoning and chain-of-thought problem solving
Cost-Performance Analysis
Apodex 1.1 Mini (free)
Input cost$0.00/M tokens
Output cost$0.00/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.000
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$0.00
Ling 3.1 Flash
Input cost$0.00/M tokens
Output cost$0.00/M tokens
Cost per quality point$0.000
Est. monthly (1M tokens/day)$0.00

Both models are priced similarly, so the decision comes down to quality and features rather than cost.

Latency & Speed
Apodex 1.1 Mini (free)Faster
Speed score0/100
Ling 3.1 Flash
Speed score0/100

Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.

When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.

Example Use Cases

Code generation & review

Based on overall model capabilities and architecture for coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring

Apodex 1.1 Mini (free)

Customer support chatbot

Suitable for user-facing chat with competitive response times. Apodex 1.1 Mini (free) also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support

Apodex 1.1 Mini (free)

Long document analysis

Larger context window (262K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass

Apodex 1.1 Mini (free)

Batch data extraction

Lower output pricing ($0.00/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily

Apodex 1.1 Mini (free)

Creative writing & content

Higher overall composite score (40/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content

Apodex 1.1 Mini (free)
Which Should You Choose?
Our recommendation:
Apodex 1.1 Mini (free)

Apodex 1.1 Mini (free) and Ling 3.1 Flash are extremely close in overall performance (only 0 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.

by apodex

  • Choose for Quality - Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
  • Choose for Cost - 0% lower pricing; better value at scale
  • Choose for Reliability - Higher uptime and faster response speeds
  • Choose for Prototyping - Stronger community support and better developer experience
  • Choose for Production - Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale

by inclusionai

Consider for specialized use cases.

Capability Comparison
CapabilityApodex 1.1 Mini (free)Ling 3.1 Flash
Vision (Image Input)
Function Calling
Streaming
JSON Modediffers
Reasoning
Web Search
Image Output
Monthly Cost Calculator
1,000tokens (600 in / 400 out)
100requests/day (3,000/month)

Apodex 1.1 Mini (free)

apodex

$0.000000
estimated monthly cost

Ling 3.1 Flash

inclusionai

$0.000000
estimated monthly cost

Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.

Parameters & Context
ParameterApodex 1.1 Mini (free)Ling 3.1 Flash
Context Window262K262K
Max Output Tokens235,92932,768
Open SourceNoNo
CreatedOct 1, 2026Oct 2, 2026
Last updated: 10m ago

相关对比

Apodex 1.1 Mini (free) vs Ling 3.1 Flash (2026) | LM Market Cap