ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Beam 1.0 501B A23B vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Beam 1.0 501B A23B comes out ahead, 54 to 50 on our weighted score, though Ling 3.1 Flash is 5% cheaper per token.

  1. Our pick

    Reflection AI

    Beam 1.0 501B A23B

    Released Oct 5, 2026New

    54/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.30 / $1.00
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove Beam 1.0 501B A23B

  2. inclusionAI

    Ling 3.1 Flash

    Released Sep 29, 2026New

    50/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.30 / $0.90
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Ling 3.1 Flash

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Beam 1.0 501B A23B is our pick

Beam 1.0 501B A23B is the better all-round choice, scoring 54/100 against Ling 3.1 Flash (50). It leads on context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.

  • CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
  • Lowest priceLing 3.1 FlashLing 3.1 Flash $0.45 · Beam 1.0 501B A23B $0.475 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextBeam 1.0 501B A23BBeam 1.0 501B A23B 1,048,576 · Ling 3.1 Flash 262,144 tokens
  • Widest inputsSame inputsBeam 1.0 501B A23B: Text · Ling 3.1 Flash: Text
  • Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
How the score is built
MeasureWeightBeam 1.0 501B A23BLing 3.1 Flash
Price50%6264
Inputs & features30%3535
Context window20%6137
Overall100%54/10050/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Beam 1.0 501B A23B vs Ling 3.1 Flash specifications side by side
SpecificationBeam 1.0 501B A23BReflection AILing 3.1 FlashinclusionAI
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)——
ECI rank——
Price per million tokens
Input$0.30$0.30
Output$1.00$0.90 (best)
Cached input——
Blended (3:1)$0.475$0.45 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 7 providersMedian of 5 providers
Limits
Context window1,048,576 tokens (best)262,144 tokens
Max output131,072 tokens (best)32,768 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesNoNo
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoNo
Availability
WeightsOpenApache-2.0Open
API model ID——
API providers12 (best)7
ReleasedOct 5, 2026Sep 29, 2026
Knowledge cutoffJun 30, 2026—
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Beam 1.0 501B A23B$5.00
  • Ling 3.1 Flash$4.80
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Beam 1.0 501B A23B or Ling 3.1 Flash?

Beam 1.0 501B A23B is the better all-round choice, scoring 54/100 against Ling 3.1 Flash (50). It leads on context window. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.

Which is cheaper, Beam 1.0 501B A23B or Ling 3.1 Flash?

Ling 3.1 Flash is cheaper at $0.30 input / $0.90 output per million tokens (median across 5 API providers). Beam 1.0 501B A23B costs $0.30 input / $1.00 output per million tokens (median across 7 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.45 per million tokens for Ling 3.1 Flash versus $0.475 for Beam 1.0 501B A23B (1.1× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Beam 1.0 501B A23B has not been scored yet and Ling 3.1 Flash has not been scored yet.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Beam 1.0 501B A23B and Ling 3.1 Flash yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Beam 1.0 501B A23B has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 262,144 for Ling 3.1 Flash. Maximum output per response: Beam 1.0 501B A23B up to 131,072, Ling 3.1 Flash up to 32,768 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Beam 1.0 501B A23B accepts text; Ling 3.1 Flash accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.

Are any of these open source?

Yes, both publish their weights (Apache-2.0), so you can self-host them.

Which is newer?

Beam 1.0 501B A23B is the newest, released Oct 5, 2026. Ling 3.1 Flash came out Sep 29, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Beam 1.0 501B A23B Jun 30, 2026.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons