ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Toast 1 vs Ling 3.1 Flash

Ling 3.1 Flash comes out ahead, 50 to 45 on our weighted score, though Toast 1 is 10% cheaper per token.

  1. Mixedbread

    Toast 1

    Released Aug 13, 2026

    45/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.30 / $0.72
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove Toast 1
  2. Our pick

    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

Ling 3.1 Flash is our pick

Ling 3.1 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 50/100 against Toast 1 (45). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Toast 1 wins on price. 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 priceToast 1Toast 1 $0.405 · Ling 3.1 Flash $0.45 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextLing 3.1 FlashLing 3.1 Flash 262,144 · Toast 1 131,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsSame inputsToast 1: Text · Ling 3.1 Flash: Text
  • Self-hostingLing 3.1 FlashPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightToast 1Ling 3.1 Flash
Price50%6664
Inputs & features30%2535
Context window20%2437
Overall100%45/10050/100

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.

Toast 1 vs Ling 3.1 Flash specifications side by side
SpecificationToast 1MixedbreadLing 3.1 FlashinclusionAI
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)——
ECI rank——
Price per million tokens
Input$0.30$0.30
Output$0.72 (best)$0.90
Cached input——
Blended (3:1)$0.405 (best)$0.45
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 1 providersMedian of 5 providers
Limits
Context window131,000 tokens262,144 tokens (best)
Max output4,000 tokens32,768 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesNoNo
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningNoYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpen
API model ID——
API providers17 (best)
ReleasedAug 13, 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.

  • Toast 1$4.44
  • Ling 3.1 Flash$4.80
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Toast 1 or Ling 3.1 Flash?

Ling 3.1 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 50/100 against Toast 1 (45). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Toast 1 wins on price. 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, Toast 1 or Ling 3.1 Flash?

Toast 1 is cheaper at $0.30 input / $0.72 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Ling 3.1 Flash costs $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 $0.405 per million tokens for Toast 1 versus $0.45 for Ling 3.1 Flash (1.1× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Toast 1 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 Toast 1 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?

Ling 3.1 Flash has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 131,000 for Toast 1. Maximum output per response: Toast 1 up to 4,000, Ling 3.1 Flash up to 32,768 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Toast 1 accepts text; Ling 3.1 Flash accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.

Are any of these open source?

Ling 3.1 Flash publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Toast 1 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Ling 3.1 Flash is the newest, released Sep 29, 2026. Toast 1 came out Aug 13, 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