Ling 3.1 Flash is $0.07 cheaper per 1M input tokens (50% lower; 2x difference).
API cost decision in 10 seconds
NewLing 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3.8 Omni Flash
Pick Ling 3.1 Flash for lower cost; pick Qwen3.8 Omni Flash 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 Qwen3.8 Omni Flash 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 $0.39 for Qwen3.8 Omni Flash, saving $0.2 (51.3% lower).
Cost-first pickLing 3.1 Flash
Context-first pickQwen3.8 Omni Flash
Sample savings$0.251.3%
10x traffic gap$1.98
Qwen3.8 Omni Flash has more context, but Ling 3.1 Flash saves $0.2 on the standard workload. At 10x that traffic, the same price gap is about $1.98. 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 | Ling 3.1 Flash | Qwen3.8 Omni Flash |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Input-heavy / RAG | 5M input + 500K output | Ling 3.1 Flash | $0.49 | $0.98 |
| Balanced workload | 1M input + 1M output | Ling 3.1 Flash | $0.3 | $0.62 |
| Output-heavy chatbot | 1M input + 5M output | Ling 3.1 Flash | $1.2 | $2.5 |
Ling 3.1 Flash is $0.24 cheaper per 1M output tokens (52.1% lower; 2.09x difference).
Qwen3.8 Omni Flash has 737.86K more context (3.81x larger).
Ling 3.1 Flash is $0.2 cheaper on the standard workload (51.3% 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; Qwen3.8 Omni Flash 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 $0.19 for Ling 3.1 Flash and $0.39 for Qwen3.8 Omni Flash.
Choose Ling 3.1 Flash when you care most about lower input-token price, and lower output-token price.
Choose Qwen3.8 Omni Flash when you care most about larger context window.
- On the standard 1M input plus 500K output workload, Ling 3.1 Flash is estimated at $0.19 vs $0.39 for Qwen3.8 Omni Flash, saving $0.2 (51.3% lower).
- Ling 3.1 Flash is $0.2 cheaper on the standard workload (51.3% lower).
- Ling 3.1 Flash is $0.07 cheaper per 1M input tokens (50% lower; 2x difference).
- Ling 3.1 Flash is $0.24 cheaper per 1M output tokens (52.1% lower; 2.09x difference).
- Qwen3.8 Omni Flash has 737.86K more context (3.81x larger).
| Feature | NewLing 3.1 Flash (inclusionAI) | Qwen3.8 Omni Flash (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Input Price prompt tokens per 1M | $0.075 | $0.15 |
| Completion Price per 1M tokens | $0.225 | $0.47 |
| Sample Workload Cost 1M input + 500K output | $0.19 | $0.39 |
| Context Window | 262.14K | 1M |
| 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 $0.39 for Qwen3.8 Omni Flash, saving $0.2 (51.3% 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 | Qwen3.8 Omni Flash | A larger context window leaves more room for retrieved passages, conversation history, or source files. |
Related Alternatives
- 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.
- Ling 3.0 Tiny (free) can replace Ling 3.1 Flash when lower sample workload cost matters most: $0.
- Llama 4 Scout offers 1.31M context with $0.47 sample workload cost.
- 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.
- 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 hubsinclusionAI catalog
Review all tracked inclusionAI models before deciding whether this matchup is the right shortlist.
Open inclusionAI modelsQwen catalog
Check other Qwen models with comparable pricing, context, or release timing.
Open Qwen modelsLing 3.1 Flash is a hybrid reasoning mixture-of-experts model from inclusionAI, with 25B active parameters out of 560B total.
Qwen3.8 Omni Flash is an omni-modal reasoning model from Alibaba, the first Qwen model built around agentic capabilities with native audio-video understanding. It is suited for audio-video analysis and summarization,...