Compare AI models: DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 vs Ling 3.1 Flash

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017DeepSeekHollow points use fallbacks · hover for details
Ling 3.1 FlashinclusionAIHollow points use fallbacks · hover for details

ReasoningCodingCost efficiencyContext windowMultimodalTool use

Normalized model capability scores
Model	Reasoning	Coding	Cost efficiency	Context window	Multimodal	Tool use
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017	56/100	100/100	68/100	81/100	33/100	50/100 — Tool calling supported; no comparable benchmark
Ling 3.1 Flash	50/100 — Reasoning supported; no comparable benchmark	50/100 — No data; neutral placeholder	83/100	63/100	0/100	50/100 — Tool calling supported; no comparable benchmark

Overview

Author

Context length

262K

Reasoning

True

Input modalities

Text, Image

Text

Output modalities

Text

Providers

Pricing

Input

$0.15/ 1M

$0.07/ 1M

Output

$0.60/ 1M

$0.23/ 1M

Cached input

$0.003/ 1M

$0.01/ 1M

MomentumLast 2 mo

Unique users

3.3K

41K

Completed sessions

27,838

825,434

Token share

0.01%

0.02%

Tokens

66B+100%

252B+100%

AUG 25OCT 19

RetentionWeek 1

Returning users

Pending

Related comparisons. Other model pairs to check.