GLM 5.3 Flash vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Overall
35
vs
Overall
45

Ling 3.1 Flash is clearly better. It wins 41 of the 62 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. Ling 3.1 Flash spends 2.3× as many thinking tokens per test case.

Thinking tokensAnswer tokens
TaskAB
Overall
3555.5s
2.8K, 89% thinking7.9K, 73% thinking
451m 16s
Agents
1037.0s
607, 81% thinking4.5K, 66% thinking
4155.9s
Structured Extraction
4847.2s
2.7K, 93% thinking8.1K, 69% thinking
711m 11s
Coding
541m 52s
5.3K, 83% thinking11.3K, 89% thinking
241m 42s
Grounded Answers
3756.8s
2.9K, 93% thinking6.7K, 74% thinking
5258.9s
Instruction Following
4340.8s
2K, 77% thinking11.4K, 77% thinking
761m 55s
Business Logic
331m 18s
5.8K, 98% thinking9.7K, 56% thinking
381m 22s
Security & permissions
5525.2s
963, 81% thinking5.2K, 74% thinking
5456.1s
Diagnosis & investigation
027.0s
563, 63% 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
60 tok/s
112 tok/s (better)
Machine
Hosted
Hosted
Memory at 32K
—
—
Context
1M (better)
256K
Cost per run
$0.19
Not measured
Cost per case
$0.0013
Not measured
Time per case
55.5s (better)
1m 16s
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.

GLM 5.3 FlashLing 3.1 Flash
025507510050100150Perfect run3545

Every test case

153 test cases

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

21 won by GLM 5.3 Flash41 won by Ling 3.1 Flash91 tied