Apodex 1.1 Mini (free) vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Overall
25
vs
Overall
45

Ling 3.1 Flash is clearly better. It wins 42 of the 46 test cases where they differ.

Learn to build evals like this in the AI Engineering Academy

Task by task

A score turns orange only when that model wins clearly more of the task's test cases. Under each score, the average time per test case on the machine it ran on. Both models spend about the same on thinking per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
2535.1s
8.5K, 75% thinking7.9K, 73% thinking
451m 16s
Agents
2639.4s
6.2K, 69% thinking4.5K, 66% thinking
4155.9s
Structured Extraction
5227.2s
7.7K, 68% thinking8.1K, 69% thinking
711m 11s
Coding
446.5s
12.1K, 94% thinking11.3K, 89% thinking
241m 42s
Grounded Answers
2926.0s
6.9K, 70% thinking6.7K, 74% thinking
5258.9s
Instruction Following
3644.5s
11.4K, 79% thinking11.4K, 77% thinking
761m 55s
Business Logic
1435.4s
10K, 56% thinking9.7K, 56% thinking
381m 22s
Security & permissions
4027.3s
5.8K, 76% thinking5.2K, 74% thinking
5456.1s
Diagnosis & investigation
034.6s
5.1K, 84% thinking3.2K, 72% thinking
042.1s

What you'd run

The build behind each score. Orange marks the faster, smaller, cheaper or longer-context side.

SpecAB
Speed
278 tok/s (better)
112 tok/s
Machine
Hosted
Hosted
Memory at 32K
—
—
Context
256K
256K
Cost per run
Not measured
Not measured
Cost per case
Not measured
Not measured
Time per case
35.1s (better)
1m 16s
Quantization
BF16
—
Harness
openrouter
openrouter

The race

No lead changes

Each model's running score as the test cases go by. The dashed line is a perfect run.

Apodex 1.1 Mini (free)Ling 3.1 Flash
025507510050100150Perfect run2545

Every test case

153 test cases

Each square is one test case, colored by the model that scored higher.

4 won by Apodex 1.1 Mini (free)42 won by Ling 3.1 Flash107 tied