ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Muse Wonder Full vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Muse Wonder Full comes out ahead, 72 to 36 on our weighted score.

  1. Our pick

    Meta

    Muse Wonder Full

    Released Oct 12, 2026New

    72/100
    • ECI—
    • Price—
    • Context1.05M
    Full specs Remove Muse Wonder Full

  2. inclusionAI

    Ling 3.1 Flash

    Released Sep 29, 2026New

    36/100
    • 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

Muse Wonder Full is our pick

Muse Wonder Full is the better all-round choice, scoring 72/100 against Ling 3.1 Flash (36). It leads on inputs & features and context window. 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 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · Muse Wonder Full unpriced
  • Longest contextMuse Wonder FullMuse Wonder Full 1,048,576 · Ling 3.1 Flash 262,144 tokens
  • Widest inputsMuse Wonder FullMuse Wonder Full: Text, Images, Audio, Video · Ling 3.1 Flash: Text
  • Self-hostingLing 3.1 FlashPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightMuse Wonder FullLing 3.1 Flash
Inputs & features60%8035
Context window40%6137
Overall100%72/10036/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability and price. 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.

Muse Wonder Full vs Ling 3.1 Flash specifications side by side
SpecificationMuse Wonder FullMetaLing 3.1 FlashinclusionAI
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)——
ECI rank——
Price per million tokens
Input—$0.30
Output—$0.90
Cached input——
Blended (3:1)—$0.45
Long-context rate—Same rate
Price source—Median of 5 providers
Limits
Context window1,048,576 tokens (best)262,144 tokens
Max output—32,768 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesNo
PDFsNoNo
AudioYesNo
VideoYesNo
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpen
API model ID——
API providers—7
ReleasedOct 12, 2026Sep 29, 2026
Knowledge cutoff——
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.

  • Muse Wonder Full—
  • Ling 3.1 Flash$4.80
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Muse Wonder Full or Ling 3.1 Flash?

Muse Wonder Full is the better all-round choice, scoring 72/100 against Ling 3.1 Flash (36). It leads on inputs & features and context window. 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, Muse Wonder Full 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). . 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 . Muse Wonder Full has no published per-token price.

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Muse Wonder Full 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 Muse Wonder Full 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?

Muse Wonder Full 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 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Muse Wonder Full accepts text, images, audio and video; Ling 3.1 Flash accepts text. Muse Wonder Full handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Ling 3.1 Flash publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Muse Wonder Full is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Muse Wonder Full is the newest, released Oct 12, 2026. Ling 3.1 Flash came out Sep 29, 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