DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Overall
64
vs
Overall
45

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash is clearly better. It wins 40 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
643m 35s
6K, 91% thinking7.9K, 73% thinking
451m 16s
Agents
464m 42s
6.1K, 82% thinking4.5K, 66% thinking
4155.9s
Structured Extraction
862m 8s
4.4K, 94% thinking8.1K, 69% thinking
711m 11s
Coding
514m 55s
9.7K, 95% thinking11.3K, 89% thinking
241m 42s
Grounded Answers
762m 17s
3.9K, 90% thinking6.7K, 74% thinking
5258.9s
Instruction Following
894m 24s
7.5K, 94% thinking11.4K, 77% thinking
761m 55s
Business Logic
814m 1s
7K, 97% thinking9.7K, 56% thinking
381m 22s
Security & permissions
693m 3s
4.4K, 81% thinking5.2K, 74% thinking
5456.1s
Diagnosis & investigation
172m 8s
3.2K, 67% 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
30 tok/s
112 tok/s (better)
Machine
Hosted
Hosted
Memory at 32K
—
—
Context
1M (better)
256K
Cost per run
$0.39
Not measured
Cost per case
$0.0026
Not measured
Time per case
3m 35s
1m 16s (better)
Quantization
FP8
—
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.

DeepSeek V4.1 FlashLing 3.1 Flash
025507510050100150Perfect run6445

Every test case

153 test cases

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

40 won by DeepSeek V4.1 Flash6 won by Ling 3.1 Flash107 tied