Ling 3.1 Flash vs Beam 1.0 501B A23B
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.
inclusionAILing 3.1 Flash
50/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $0.90
- Context262K
- Our pick
Reflection AIBeam 1.0 501B A23B
54/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $1.00
- Context1.05M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
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 inputsLing 3.1 Flash: Text · Beam 1.0 501B A23B: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Ling 3.1 Flash | Beam 1.0 501B A23B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 64 | 62 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 50/100 | 54/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Ling 3.1 FlashinclusionAI | Beam 1.0 501B A23BReflection AI |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.30 | $0.30 |
| Output | $0.90 (best) | $1.00 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.45 (best) | $0.475 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 5 providers | Median of 7 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | OpenApache-2.0 |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 7 | 12 (best) |
| Released | Sep 29, 2026 | Oct 5, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Jun 30, 2026 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Ling 3.1 Flash$4.80
- Beam 1.0 501B A23B$5.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Ling 3.1 Flash or Beam 1.0 501B A23B?
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, Ling 3.1 Flash or Beam 1.0 501B A23B?
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. Ling 3.1 Flash has not been scored yet and Beam 1.0 501B A23B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Ling 3.1 Flash and Beam 1.0 501B A23B 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: Ling 3.1 Flash up to 32,768, Beam 1.0 501B A23B up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Ling 3.1 Flash accepts text; Beam 1.0 501B A23B 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.
Related comparisons
- Add Perceptron Mk1.5Three-way comparison
- Ling 3.1 Flash vs Perceptron Mk1.5Perceptron
- Ling 3.1 Flash vs LongCat-2.5-PreviewMeituan (LongCat)
- Ling 3.1 Flash vs MiMo-V2.6-ProXiaomi
- Beam 1.0 501B A23B vs Perceptron Mk1.5Perceptron
- Beam 1.0 501B A23B vs LongCat-2.5-PreviewMeituan (LongCat)
- Beam 1.0 501B A23B vs MiMo-V2.6-ProXiaomi
