GPT-4 Turbo Paid vs INLing 3.1 Flash Paid
GPT-4 Turbo vs Ling 3.1 Flash compared — price per token, context window, multimodality, openness and which to choose. Full 2026 breakdown.
GPT-4 Turbo — full profile › · Ling 3.1 Flash — full profile ›
Prices & specs refreshed from live data · olud.ai
Open-model prices = cheapest provider via OpenRouter; official maker rates may be higher.
$30 /M outputManaged API (no infra to run)
$0.22 /M outputManaged API (no infra to run)
GPT-4 Turbo vs Ling 3.1 Flash specs
| Spec | GPT-4 Turbo | Ling 3.1 Flash | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maker | OpenAI | InclusionAI | – |
| Type | Proprietary | Proprietary | – |
| Context window | 128K tokens | 262K tokens | INLing 3.1 Flash |
| Input price | $10/M | $0.08/M | INLing 3.1 Flash |
| Output price | $30/M | $0.22/M | INLing 3.1 Flash |
| Vision / multimodal | Yes | No | |
| Tool / function calling | Yes | Yes | = Tie |
| Self-hostable | No (API only) | No (API only) | – |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary | – |
Price gap & when to choose each
Ling 3.1 Flash is ~136× cheaper than GPT-4 Turbo on output tokens ($0.22 vs $30 per M tokens).
- You want frontier performance through a managed API
- You value reliability & ecosystem
- You don't want to manage infrastructure
- You want frontier performance through a managed API
- You need the longer 262K context window
- You want the lower output price
- You value reliability & ecosystem
- You don't want to manage infrastructure
Feature comparison
| Capability | GPT-4 Turbo | Ling 3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Open weights (downloadable) | ✗ | ✗ |
| Self-hostable | ✗ | ✗ |
| Runs fully offline | ✗ | ✗ |
| Vision / multimodal | ✓ | ✗ |
| Tool / function calling | ✓ | ✓ |
| 1M+ context window | ✗ | ✗ |
Benchmarks: GPT-4 Turbo vs Ling 3.1 Flash
Independent benchmark scores measured by Artificial Analysis. Higher is better (except latency).
Benchmark data by Artificial Analysis.
How GPT-4 Turbo and Ling 3.1 Flash score
| Criterion | GPT-4 Turbo | Ling 3.1 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Cost-efficiency | 3.0 | 5.0 |
| Context window | 3.5 | 4.0 |
| Openness | 1.5 | 1.5 |
| Self-hosting | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Multimodality | 5.0 | 3.5 |
Scores come from live data — output price (cost), context length, open vs closed weights (openness & self-hosting) and vision/tool support (multimodality). Raw task quality isn't scored here; it depends on your benchmark — see the verdict.
What each model is
GPT-4 Turbo Paid
The latest GPT-4 Turbo model with vision capabilities. Vision requests can now use JSON mode and function calling. Training data: up to December 2023.
Ling 3.1 Flash Paid
Ling 3.1 Flash is a hybrid reasoning mixture-of-experts model from inclusionAI, with 25B active parameters out of 560B total.
Frequently asked questions
GPT-4 Turbo vs Ling 3.1 Flash — which is cheaper?
Ling 3.1 Flash is cheaper on output ($0.22/M vs $30/M).
Which has the larger context window?
Ling 3.1 Flash offers the larger context window (262K tokens).
GPT-4 Turbo vs Ling 3.1 Flash — which should I pick in 2026?
Choose Ling 3.1 Flash for the lower output price ($0.22/M vs $30/M). It also gives you the larger 262K context window.
People also compare
Explore more open-source AI
Browse the full open-source model leaderboard, thousands of tools and live benchmarks — all in one place.
Open the leaderboard →