Ling 3.1 Flash vs Qwen3.8 27B

Overall
45
vs
Overall
48

Too close to call. Ling 3.1 Flash wins 35 of the 68 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
451m 16s
7.9K, 73% thinking5.9K, 91% thinking
4833.3s
Agents
4155.9s
4.5K, 66% thinking5.2K, 78% thinking
5736.6s
Structured Extraction
711m 11s
8.1K, 69% thinking4.6K, 92% thinking
7320.6s
Coding
241m 42s
11.3K, 89% thinking9.3K, 94% thinking
3753.0s
Grounded Answers
5258.9s
6.7K, 74% thinking4.2K, 91% thinking
6131.6s
Instruction Following
761m 55s
11.4K, 77% thinking6.9K, 93% thinking
6733.6s
Business Logic
381m 22s
9.7K, 56% thinking7.6K, 98% thinking
3632.9s
Security & permissions
5456.1s
5.2K, 74% thinking3.7K, 85% thinking
5122.6s
Diagnosis & investigation
042.1s
3.2K, 72% thinking5.9K, 85% thinking
040.0s

What you'd run

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

SpecAB
Speed
112 tok/s
196 tok/s (better)
Machine
Hosted
Hosted
Memory at 32K
—
—
Context
256K
256K
Cost per run
Not measured
$1.28
Cost per case
Not measured
$0.0083
Time per case
1m 16s
33.3s (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.

Ling 3.1 FlashQwen3.8 27B
025507510050100150Perfect run4548

Every test case

153 test cases

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

35 won by Ling 3.1 Flash33 won by Qwen3.8 27B85 tied