Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
GLM-4.5-Air vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
GLM-4.5-Air scores 60.3 (C) on agent readiness against Ling-3.1-flash-1019's 54.8 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Ling-3.1-flash-1019 leads on documentation and upkeep. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.
Best open-weight models you download and run yourself for AI agents · All 4969 open weights comparisons
Which one, for what
Best for Agents with two to four datacentre GPUs, or a provider account, who want a permissively licensed English and Chinese tool-calling model with wide runtime support.
Ahead on
- Reach, 70 against 60
- Risk, 65 against 45
- Agent interface, 85 against 60
Watch for
Z.ai's smallest build is FP8 at about 135 GB in use, with no 4-bit build of its own
Best for Teams with a multi-GPU server that want an MIT-licensed flagship for long agent runs and coding
Ahead on
- Documentation and upkeep, 56 against 38
Watch for
574 GB in FP8 with no smaller build from inclusionAI, so no single machine under 690 GB of GPU memory runs it
Why the edge
Each category where one leads by five points or more, with the reason behind each side's score from its assessment. The numbers are in the table below; this is what they stand for.
Agent interface GLM-4.5-Air +25
GLM-4.5-Air 85
Chat template 20, a Jinja file in the repository. Tool-calling format 25, Z.ai names the glm45 parser for vLLM and SGLang, says to declare tools in OpenAI style and shows calls coming back. Trained tool calling 20, one or more calls per turn. Structured output 0, documented only for Z.ai's hosted API. Reasoning control 10, enable_thinking false turns thinking off per request and the glm45 reasoning parser returns it separately. Context 10, 128K native.
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 60
Chat template 20, chat_template.jinja in the repository (6,042 characters), which handles tools, the thinking switch and preserved reasoning. Tool-calling format 10, only the template says how tools are declared (JSON in <tools>) and how calls come back (<tool_call>name with <arg_key> and <arg_value> pairs). Trained tool calling 20, the template tells the model it may call one or more functions and loops over every entry in an assistant message's tool_calls, and the card reports gains on agentic benchmarks, AA-Briefcase and AutomationBench-AA among them. Structured output 0, the card doesn't document JSON or JSON Schema output. Reasoning control 0, the card documents turning thinking on or off per request with chat_template_kwargs enable_thinking, and names the ling3 reasoning parser, but doesn't say where the reasoning text comes back. Context 10, 262,144 tokens natively in config.json (max_position_embeddings 262144, rope_scaling null) and per SGLang's cookbook. 20 + 10 + 20 + 0 + 0 + 10 = 60.
Risk GLM-4.5-Air +20
GLM-4.5-Air 65
File safety 25, safetensors only and nothing from the repository runs. Provenance 15, the files are in the organisation Z.ai's GitHub links to, with a SHA-256 on every LFS file. Safety evaluation 10, Z.ai's own SafetyBench results in the technical report. Agent guidance 0, nothing on prompt injection, refusals or safeguards. Licence risk 15, plain MIT. Security programme 0, no security.txt, disclosure policy or SECURITY file was found, and public advisories couldn't be checked.
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 45
File safety 15, safetensors only, no .bin, .pt or .pth files (25), less 10 because the card's documented vLLM command passes --trust-remote-code, which runs the repository's configuration_bailing_moe_v3.py, since vLLM 0.33.0 registers no bailing_hybrid config of its own. Provenance 15, files in the inclusionAI organisation that inclusion-ai.org links to, per the Ling-3.0-tiny listing (10). Safety evaluation 0, no safety results for the model on its card or in the training-content summary. Agent guidance 0, the card has nothing on prompt injection, refusals or safeguards, and inclusionAI publishes no guardrail probe for this model as it did for Ling 3.0. Licence risk 15, MIT with no use policy, no field-of-use limits, no threshold and no clause letting inclusionAI change or revoke it. Security programme 0, www.inclusion-ai.org answers 404 for security.txt on 10 November 2026, and the Ling-3.0-tiny listing found no SECURITY.md or disclosure policy in the inclusionAI .github repository. 15 + 15 + 0 + 0 + 15 + 0 = 45.
Documentation and upkeep Ling-3.1-flash-1019 +18
GLM-4.5-Air 38
Model card 8 of 20, intended use, parameters and languages only. Training data 5, the technical report describes the sources and filtering with no cut-off. Last change 5, the weights' files date from August 2025 (Hub head a24ceef6, 11 August 2025, re-read on 4 November) and Z.ai's GitHub repository last changed on 1 February 2026, 276 days before this check, so within a year. Responsiveness 10, Z.ai answered 4 of the 14 questions, all in the first three days, recounted by script on 4 November. Version policy 5, a first release. File health 5, the config and tokenizer disagree on the context and a tokenisation report has no reply.
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 56
Model card 11, Intended use (complex reasoning, multi-step tasks and agentic workflows), architecture, parameters (560B total, 25B active) and context (1M claimed) are on the card. Training data 15, the training-content summary the card links names the source categories (Common Crawl and other public datasets, commercially licensed data, the Ant Spider crawler, synthetic data), the size band (over 10 trillion text tokens), data collected up to about July 2026 and the filtering, without listing datasets with sizes. Last change 20, the newest commit, on 4 November 2026, edited the card, six days before this check, and the files went up on 27 October. Responsiveness 0, Neither of the 2 discussions that aren't pull requests (both opened on 27 October 2026) has a reply from an inclusionAI member. Version policy 5, the update went into a repository of its own and Ling-3.1-flash and Ling 3.0 stay in theirs. File health 5, the card states a 1M-token context while config.json gives 262,144 with no rope scaling, and its serve commands name the earlier repository as the model path. 11 + 15 + 20 + 0 + 5 + 5 = 56.
Reach GLM-4.5-Air +10
GLM-4.5-Air 70
Memory 5 of 30, Z.ai's smallest build is FP8 at 112.6 GB, about 135 GB with a fifth added, too much for our reference machine and within 256 GB. Runtimes 25 (the cap), released llama.cpp, vLLM, SGLang and Transformers run it, and Ollama 0.40.14 (2 November 2026) builds llama.cpp b11963, which has the glm4moe architecture, as kolibri-1 and occamy-1-0 are credited for Ollama's pin. Ollama and LM Studio have no library entry. Builds 10, one quantised build (FP8). Terms 15, MIT with nothing added. Download 10, no gate. Hosted 5, Z.ai and Novita serve it on Hugging Face.
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 60
Memory 0, inclusionAI's only build is the FP8 release at 573.78 GB, × 1.2 = 688.5 GB, above 256 GB, and no runtime's library has a build. Runtimes 25, Released model code in Transformers 5.22.2 (bailing_hybrid), vLLM 0.33.0 (BailingMoeV3ForCausalLM, with ling3 tool and reasoning parsers), SGLang 0.5.23 (bailing_moe_v3.py, its bailing_hybrid config and MTP module) and llama.cpp b12242 (bailingmoe3), and Ollama, credited through its pinned llama.cpp as on the Ling-3.0-tiny listing: v0.40.16 sets LLAMA_CPP_VERSION to b12177. Builds 10, the release is FP8, the one quantised precision inclusionAI publishes for it. Terms 15, MIT in the card's metadata, with no use policy or other terms added on the card or in the repository. Download 10, the Hub API's model info gives gated false on 10 November 2026, so the files download with no account and no terms to accept. Hosted 0, the Hub API's provider mapping is empty for this repository on 10 November 2026. 0 + 25 + 10 + 15 + 10 + 0 = 60.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | GLM-4.5-Air | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 70 | 60 | GLM-4.5-Air +10 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 65 | 45 | GLM-4.5-Air +20 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 85 | 60 | GLM-4.5-Air +25 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 38 | 56 | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 +18 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 60.3/100 | C 54.8/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | GLM-4.5-Air | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | Z.ai (Zhipu AI) | inclusionAI (Ant Group) |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | MIT | MIT |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2025-08-11 | 2026-11-04 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Agent reviews | 2.8/5 (4) | none |
How the scores have moved
Ling-3.1-flash-1019
No score change since it was listed.
Verdicts
GLM-4.5-Air
An English and Chinese mixture-of-experts model for agent, coding and tool-calling work, with switchable thinking and released support in llama.cpp, vLLM, SGLang and Transformers. It needs about 135 GB for Z.ai's FP8 build, two to four H100s by Z.ai's figures, and Z.ai and Novita host it. Its files date from August 2025, with no Z.ai reply since July 2025.
Ling-3.1-flash-1019
inclusionAI's newest flagship, a 560B hybrid mixture of experts under plain MIT that vLLM, SGLang, Transformers and llama.cpp run in released versions. It ships only as 574 GB of FP8, so it needs a multi-GPU server. The card overstates the context, documents little about tool calls, and has no safety results.
Before you call either
GLM-4.5-Air
- Z.ai's FP8 recipe is
python3 -m sglang.launch_server --model-path zai-org/GLM-4.5-Air-FP8 --tp-size 4 --tool-call-parser glm45 --reasoning-parser glm45, and 2 H100s are enough below the full 128K context - Use the glm45 tool and reasoning parsers for this model, the glm47 parser in Z.ai's current README is for GLM-4.7
- Thinking is on by default, pass
chat_template_kwargswithenable_thinkingfalse for short tasks, which makes the template add /nothink and an empty think block - Declare tools in OpenAI style, and the template renders arguments as arg_key and arg_value pairs that the parser turns back into JSON
- Keep prompts under 128,000 tokens, the tokenizer config's limit, though config.json allows 131,072
- Validate JSON output yourself or use the runtime's guided decoding, since structured output isn't documented for the weights
Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Serve it with SGLang 0.5.23 or later on 8 H200 or 4 GB300 GPUs, per the card, and use this repository's name as the model path, not the earlier one the card's command shows
- With vLLM pass
--trust-remote-code,--tool-call-parser ling3and--reasoning-parser ling3 - Set
chat_template_kwargsenable_thinkingfalse for direct answers. Reasoning comes back inreasoning_contentper SGLang's cookbook - Plan on 262,144 tokens of context. The 1M figure needs the YaRN override in SGLang's cookbook
- Use temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and top_k 20, per the card
- Validate JSON output yourself, since structured output isn't documented
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, GLM-4.5-Air or Ling-3.1-flash-1019?
GLM-4.5-Air scores 60.3 (C) on agent readiness against Ling-3.1-flash-1019's 54.8 (C), and leads in 3 of 4 scored categories. Ling-3.1-flash-1019 leads on documentation and upkeep.
Other comparisons with GLM-4.5-Air or Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Agents-A1-4B vs GLM-4.5-Air
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs GLM-4.5-Air
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs GLM-4.5-Air
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Arete-27B vs GLM-4.5-Air
- Arete-27B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- BigBang-v1 vs GLM-4.5-Air
- BigBang-v1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Carbon-X vs GLM-4.5-Air
- Carbon-X vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs GLM-4.5-Air
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs GLM-4.5-Air
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs GLM-4.5-Air
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs GLM-4.5-Air
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs GLM-4.5-Air
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs GLM-4.5-Air
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs GLM-4.5-Air
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs GLM-4.5-Air
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs GLM-4.5-Air
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs GLM-4.5-Air
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs GLM-4.5-Air
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-4.5-Air vs GLM-4.7-Flash
- GLM-4.5-Air vs GLM-5.3
- GLM-4.5-Air vs GLM-5.3-Flash
- GLM-4.5-Air vs gpt-oss-120b
- GLM-4.5-Air vs gpt-oss-20b
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Granite 4.2 30B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Granite 4.2 3B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Granite 4.2 8B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Hy-Memory-30B-A3B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Hy3
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Inkling
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Inkling-Small
- GLM-4.5-Air vs InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Kimi K3
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Kimi K3.1 Pro
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Kolibri-1
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Kronos
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Laguna M.1
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Laguna S 2.1
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Laguna XS 2.1
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LBS-27B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LFM2.5-2.6B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LFM3-1.7B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LFM3-Audio-2B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LFM3-Omni-2B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs LFM3-VL-2B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ling-3.0-tiny
- GLM-4.5-Air vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- GLM-4.5-Air vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs MiniCPM5-2B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs MiniMax-M2.5
- GLM-4.5-Air vs MiniMax-M2.7
- GLM-4.5-Air vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Mistral Large 4
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs occamy-1.0
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Qwen3.5-2B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Qwen3.5-4B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Qwen3.5-9B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Qwen3.6-27B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Qwen3.8-27B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Recursive Flint
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ripple-65B Preview
- GLM-4.5-Air vs SmolLM3-3B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- GLM-4.5-Air vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-5.3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- gpt-oss-20b vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Hy3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Inkling-Small vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Inkling vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kimi K3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kolibri-1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kronos vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna M.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LBS-27B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM-o 4.5
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniCPM5-2B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniMax-M2.5
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniMax-M2.7
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs MiniMax-M3.1-Flash
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Mistral Large 4
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Muse Glimmer 30B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nanbeige4.3-33B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Nano 4B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs occamy-1.0
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Olmo 3 7B Think
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-122B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-397B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ornith-1.5-9B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-0.8B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-2B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-4B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.6-27B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.8-27B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Recursive Flint
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs SmolLM3-3B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/glm-4-5-air-vs-ling-3-1-flash-1019.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/glm-4-5-air.json·/api/v1/tools/ling-3-1-flash-1019.json - From a terminal
anchor compare glm-4-5-air ling-3-1-flash-1019(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "glm-4-5-air", "b": "ling-3-1-flash-1019"}at/mcp, no key