Ling 3.1 Flash is $0.03 cheaper per 1M input tokens (25% lower; 1.33x difference).
API cost decision in 10 seconds
NewClaude Haiku 5.5 vs NewLing 3.1 Flash
Pick Ling 3.1 Flash for lower cost; pick Claude Haiku 5.5 only if the larger context window matters more.
Page updated:
Data confirmed:
Prices normalized to USD per 1M tokens
Sample workload: 1M input + 500K output
Budget verdict
Pick Ling 3.1 Flash for lower cost; pick Claude Haiku 5.5 only if the larger context window matters more.
On the standard 1M input plus 500K output workload, Ling 3.1 Flash is estimated at $0.19 vs $0.35 for Claude Haiku 5.5, saving $0.16 (46.4% lower).
Cost-first pickLing 3.1 Flash
Context-first pickClaude Haiku 5.5
Sample savings$0.1646.4%
10x traffic gap$1.62
Claude Haiku 5.5 has more context, but Ling 3.1 Flash saves $0.16 on the standard workload. At 10x that traffic, the same price gap is about $1.62. Use the calculator below to replace the sample workload with your own token volume.
Cost sensitivity
Workload Sensitivity
Ling 3.1 Flash stays cheaper across input-heavy, balanced, and output-heavy sample workloads.
| Workload shape | Token mix | Better pick | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Ling 3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Input-heavy / RAG | 5M input + 500K output | Ling 3.1 Flash | $0.75 | $0.49 |
| Balanced workload | 1M input + 1M output | Ling 3.1 Flash | $0.6 | $0.3 |
| Output-heavy chatbot | 1M input + 5M output | Ling 3.1 Flash | $2.6 | $1.2 |
Ling 3.1 Flash is $0.28 cheaper per 1M output tokens (55% lower; 2.22x difference).
Claude Haiku 5.5 has 737.86K more context (3.81x larger).
Ling 3.1 Flash is $0.16 cheaper on the standard workload (46.4% lower).
Estimate your workload cost
Your Workload Cost
This estimate uses normalized public API pricing per 1M tokens. It is a planning aid, not a billing quote. Verify provider pricing, limits, and terms before production use.
Quick Decision
Ling 3.1 Flash has the lower input price; Ling 3.1 Flash has the lower output price; Claude Haiku 5.5 offers the larger context window. For the 1M input plus 500K output sample, Ling 3.1 Flash is cheaper for the standard workload.
For a 1M input token plus 500K output token workload, the estimated API cost is $0.35 for Claude Haiku 5.5 and $0.19 for Ling 3.1 Flash.
Choose Claude Haiku 5.5 when you care most about larger context window.
Choose Ling 3.1 Flash when you care most about lower input-token price, and lower output-token price.
- On the standard 1M input plus 500K output workload, Ling 3.1 Flash is estimated at $0.19 vs $0.35 for Claude Haiku 5.5, saving $0.16 (46.4% lower).
- Ling 3.1 Flash is $0.16 cheaper on the standard workload (46.4% lower).
- Ling 3.1 Flash is $0.03 cheaper per 1M input tokens (25% lower; 1.33x difference).
- Ling 3.1 Flash is $0.28 cheaper per 1M output tokens (55% lower; 2.22x difference).
- Claude Haiku 5.5 has 737.86K more context (3.81x larger).
| Feature | NewClaude Haiku 5.5 (Anthropic) | NewLing 3.1 Flash (inclusionAI) |
|---|---|---|
| Input Price prompt tokens per 1M | $0.1 | $0.075 |
| Completion Price per 1M tokens | $0.5 | $0.225 |
| Sample Workload Cost 1M input + 500K output | $0.35 | $0.19 |
| Context Window | 1M | 262.14K |
| Release Date |
Use-Case Decision Matrix
| Use case | Better pick | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Budget-constrained production | Ling 3.1 Flash | On the standard 1M input plus 500K output workload, Ling 3.1 Flash is estimated at $0.19 vs $0.35 for Claude Haiku 5.5, saving $0.16 (46.4% lower). |
| High-volume input processing | Ling 3.1 Flash | Lower prompt-token price matters most when prompts, retrieved passages, or documents dominate the bill. |
| Long responses and chatbots | Ling 3.1 Flash | Lower output-token price matters most when assistants generate many completion tokens. |
| RAG or long-document work | Claude Haiku 5.5 | A larger context window leaves more room for retrieved passages, conversation history, or source files. |
Related Alternatives
- Claude Haiku 5.5 (batch) can replace Claude Haiku 5.5 when lower sample workload cost matters most: $0.17.
- Ling 3.0 Flash VL (free) can replace Ling 3.1 Flash when lower sample workload cost matters most: $0.
- Ling 3.0 Flash Sante (free) can replace Ling 3.1 Flash when lower sample workload cost matters most: $0.
- Ling 3.0 Flash Fin (free) can replace Ling 3.1 Flash when lower sample workload cost matters most: $0.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash offers 1.05M context with $0.28 sample workload cost.
- GPT-6 Luna offers 1.05M context with $0.35 sample workload cost.
- GPT-6 Luna Pro offers 1.05M context with $0.35 sample workload cost.
- GPT-6 Luna Pro (batch) offers 1.05M context with $0.17 sample workload cost.
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash · DeepSeek · #1
- Step 5 Preview · StepFun · #2
- GLM 5.3 Flash · Z.ai · #3
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash · Xiaomi · #4
Cheaper alternatives
Review low-cost models sorted by a standard 1M input plus 500K output workload.
Open cheapest modelsLarger context alternatives
Find models with larger context windows for RAG, long documents, and codebase review.
Open largest context modelsProvider catalogs
Compare models within provider hubs before choosing a final API vendor.
Open provider hubsAnthropic catalog
Review all tracked Anthropic models before deciding whether this matchup is the right shortlist.
Open Anthropic modelsinclusionAI catalog
Check other inclusionAI models with comparable pricing, context, or release timing.
Open inclusionAI modelsClaude Haiku 5.5 is Anthropic's small, fast model for high-volume, cost-sensitive work such as summarization, subagents, and browser use. It succeeds Claude Haiku 4.5 with stronger coding, computer use, and...
Ling 3.1 Flash is a hybrid reasoning mixture-of-experts model from inclusionAI, with 25B active parameters out of 560B total.