Ling 3.1 Flash vs Muse Spark 1.3
Ling 3.1 Flash is 17.8× cheaper for typical traffic ; Muse Spark 1.3 scores higher on the Artificial Analysis intelligence index (48.1 vs 41.1).
Prices checked Oct 21, 2026
| Ling 3.1 Flash | Muse Spark 1.3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | inclusionAI | Meta |
| Input / 1M tokens | $0.075 | $1.25 |
| Output / 1M tokens | $0.225 | $4.25 |
| Cached input / 1M | $0.015 | $0.15 |
| Context window | 262K | 1.05M |
| Max output | 236K | 944K |
| Intelligence index | 41.1 | 48.1 |
| Image input | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning mode | Yes | Yes |
| Open weights | No | No |
Monthly cost for common workloads
| Workload | Ling 3.1 Flash | Muse Spark 1.3 |
|---|---|---|
| Customer chatbot 1,000 conversations a day, 8 turns each | $32.94 | $569 |
| Document Q&A (RAG) 500 questions a day over retrieved documents | $7.90 | $134 |
| Coding / tool-using agent 200 tasks a day, long tool-heavy contexts | $16.20 | $255 |
| Content generation 30 long articles a day | $0.709 | $12.94 |
| Classification / extraction 100,000 short items a day | $77.63 | $1,316 |
Estimates include cached-input discounts where a model offers them. Try your own numbers in the cost calculator.
Which one to choose
- Lowest cost: Ling 3.1 Flash — 17.8× cheaper on a 3:1 input/output mix.
- Longer documents: Muse Spark 1.3 reads up to 1.05M tokens at once.
- Capabilities: Ling 3.1 Flash — tools, reasoning, JSON; Muse Spark 1.3 — vision, tools, reasoning, JSON.