Ling 3.1 Flash vs Muse Wonder Full vs Beam 1.0 501B A23B
Muse Wonder Full comes out ahead, 72 to 45 and 36 on our weighted score.
inclusionAILing 3.1 Flash
36/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $0.90
- Context262K
- Our pick
MetaMuse Wonder Full
72/100- ECI—
- Price—
- Context1.05M
Reflection AIBeam 1.0 501B A23B
45/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $1.00
- Context1.05M
Muse Wonder Full is our pick
Muse Wonder Full is the better all-round choice, scoring 72/100 against Beam 1.0 501B A23B (45) and Ling 3.1 Flash (36). It leads on inputs & features. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. 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) · Muse Wonder Full unpriced
- Longest contextMuse Wonder Full and Beam 1.0 501B A23BMuse Wonder Full 1,048,576 · Beam 1.0 501B A23B 1,048,576 · Ling 3.1 Flash 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsMuse Wonder FullLing 3.1 Flash: Text · Muse Wonder Full: Text, Images, Audio, Video · Beam 1.0 501B A23B: Text
- Self-hostingLing 3.1 Flash and Beam 1.0 501B A23BPublishes downloadable weights (Apache-2.0)
| Measure | Weight | Ling 3.1 Flash | Muse Wonder Full | Beam 1.0 501B A23B |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inputs & features | 60% | 35 | 80 | 35 |
| Context window | 40% | 37 | 61 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 36/100 | 72/100 | 45/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability and price. 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 | Muse Wonder FullMeta | 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) | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens | — | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | Yes | No |
| Video | No | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary | OpenApache-2.0 |
| API model ID | — | — | — |
| API providers | 7 | — | 12 (best) |
| Released | Sep 29, 2026 | Oct 12, 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
- Muse Wonder Full—
- Beam 1.0 501B A23B$5.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Ling 3.1 Flash, Muse Wonder Full or Beam 1.0 501B A23B?
Muse Wonder Full is the better all-round choice, scoring 72/100 against Beam 1.0 501B A23B (45) and Ling 3.1 Flash (36). It leads on inputs & features. The score weighs inputs & features 60%, context window 40%. 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, Muse Wonder Full 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). Muse Wonder Full has no published per-token price.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Ling 3.1 Flash has not been scored yet, Muse Wonder Full 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, Muse Wonder Full 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. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Muse Wonder Full and Beam 1.0 501B A23B have the largest context windows (1,048,576 and 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; Muse Wonder Full accepts text, images, audio and video; Beam 1.0 501B A23B accepts text. Muse Wonder Full handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Ling 3.1 Flash and Beam 1.0 501B A23B publishes its weights (Apache-2.0) and can be self-hosted; Muse Wonder Full is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Muse Wonder Full is the newest, released Oct 12, 2026. Beam 1.0 501B A23B came out 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.
