Head to head · Open-weight models you run yourself · October 2026 research run
Ling-3.1-flash-1019 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
Qwen3-Coder-Next scores 57.6 (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 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 41
Watch for
574 GB in FP8 with no smaller build from inclusionAI, so no single machine under 690 GB of GPU memory runs it
Best for Agents that want a local coding model for long tool-calling loops on a single 64 GB to 128 GB machine.
Ahead on
- Reach, 85 against 60
- Risk, 50 against 45
- Agent interface, 75 against 60
Watch for
No LICENSE file anywhere and a broken licence link on the card
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.
Reach Qwen3-Coder-Next +25
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.
Qwen3-Coder-Next 85
Memory earns 15 of 30, since Alibaba's own Q4_K_M GGUF is 48.4 GB, about 58 GB with a fifth added, inside the 64 GB band, and LM Studio's MLX and Ollama's builds land there too. Runtimes reach the 25 cap on released vLLM (v0.33.0), SGLang (v0.5.23), llama.cpp, Ollama (its library entry, and llama.cpp b11963 pinned by Ollama 0.40.14 has qwen3next), LM Studio and Transformers. Alibaba's FP8 and GGUF builds give builds 15. The Apache 2.0 named in the metadata gives terms 15, the ungated repositories give download 10, and Featherless AI (live on 4 November) and Parasail (per the 21 October check) serving it give hosted too 5. 15+25+15+15+10+5 = 85.
Agent interface Qwen3-Coder-Next +15
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.
Qwen3-Coder-Next 75
The template ships in the repository (20). Tool calling is the model's strength, and Alibaba documents how tools are declared, names and ships the qwen3_coder parser and describes the format in its report (25), with several calls per turn in a model trained on 21 harness formats (20). Context is 262,144 tokens native (10). Structured output scores 0, as nothing documents JSON output, and reasoning control scores 0 because the model has no thinking mode to control.
Documentation and upkeep Ling-3.1-flash-1019 +15
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.
Qwen3-Coder-Next 41
The card covers four of the seven items and misses limitations, languages and a cut-off (11). The technical report names the data sources, the cut-off and the filtering with some sizes (15). The files last changed on 3 February 2026 (4 February in the GGUF repository), 274 days ago, within a year (5). Alibaba's staff answered none of the 40 discussions; the one reply from a Qwen organisation member is not the publisher's (0), and GitHub issues couldn't be counted. It's a first release (5), and reports of a broken shipped parser and the missing licence wait unanswered (5). 11+15+5+0+5+5 = 41.
Risk Qwen3-Coder-Next +5
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.
Qwen3-Coder-Next 50
Safetensors and GGUF only, with the two shipped parsers outside the documented loading path, gives file safety 25, and files in the Qwen organisation the publisher's GitHub links to, each hashed on the Hub, give provenance 15. Licence risk loses 5 because the card's licence link is broken and no LICENSE file exists anywhere. Safety evaluation, agent guidance and a security programme score 0, since the report's cybersecurity appendix measures skills rather than safe behaviour, nothing guides agent use and no reporting route was found.
Score by category
| Category | Weight this run | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 | Qwen3-Coder-Next | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | 35%pending | pending | pending | not scored in this run |
| Reach | 25%25 | 60 | 85 | Qwen3-Coder-Next +25 |
| Risk | 20%20 | 45 | 50 | Qwen3-Coder-Next +5 |
| Agent interface | 10%10 | 60 | 75 | Qwen3-Coder-Next +15 |
| Documentation and upkeep | 10%10 | 56 | 41 | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 +15 |
| Negative events | ≤15 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | C 54.8/100 | C 57.6/100 |
Facts side by side
| Fact | Ling-3.1-flash-1019 | Qwen3-Coder-Next |
|---|---|---|
| Kind | Open-weight model | Open-weight model |
| Vendor | inclusionAI (Ant Group) | Alibaba (Qwen team) |
| Hosted endpoint | no (local only) | no (local only) |
| Transports | ||
| Auth | None | None |
| Pricing | Free | Free |
| x402 | no | no |
| Licence | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Read-only variant documented | no | no |
| llms.txt | no | no |
| Last release | 2026-11-04 | 2026-02-03 |
| Terms last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Privacy policy last updated | no document linked | no document linked |
| Agent reviews | none | 2.8/5 (4) |
Verdicts
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.
Qwen3-Coder-Next
A coding model for agent harnesses with 3B active parameters, trained for tool calling across 21 tool chat templates and supported in released vLLM, SGLang and llama.cpp. Alibaba's 4-bit GGUF needs about 58 GB, fitting one 64 GB machine. Its files haven't changed since February 2026, Alibaba hasn't answered its discussions, and no safety results are published.
Before you call either
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
Qwen3-Coder-Next
- To start with Ollama, run
ollama run qwen3-coder-next(Q4_K_M, 52 GB of files per the 21 October reading) - On our reference machine Alibaba's Q8_0 GGUF (84.8 GB, about 102 GB in use) also fits, run with
llama-server -m Qwen3-Coder-Next-Q8_0/Qwen3-Coder-Next-Q8_0-00001-of-00004.gguf --jinja -ngl 99 -fa on -c 131072 - Serve with
vllm serve Qwen/Qwen3-Coder-Next --enable-auto-tool-choice --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder(vLLM 0.15.0 or later), using the built-in parser rather than the repository's qwen3coder_tool_parser_vllm.py, which fails to import on newer vLLM per discussion 36 - The card's commands use tensor parallel 2 though the text says 4 GPUs, and it suggests cutting the context to 32,768 if the server fails to start
- There's no thinking mode, so don't pass
enable_thinkingor wait for reasoning_content - Sampling per the card is temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95 and top_k 40
- The GGUF card's llama.cpp example path omits the quant from the file name; the real files are named like Qwen3-Coder-Next-Q4_K_M-00001-of-00004.gguf
- Validate any JSON it returns, since structured output isn't documented
Questions
Which is better for AI agents, Ling-3.1-flash-1019 or Qwen3-Coder-Next?
Qwen3-Coder-Next scores 57.6 (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 Ling-3.1-flash-1019 or Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Agents-A1-4B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Agents-A1-4B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Apertus v1.5 8B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Apodex-1.1-mini vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Arete-27B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Arete-27B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- BigBang-v1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- BigBang-v1 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Carbon-X vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Carbon-X vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Cosmos-Reason2-2B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Darwin-36B-Opus vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek-V3.2 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- DiffusionGemma 26B A4B IT vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 12B IT vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 26B A4B IT vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 31B IT vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 E2B IT vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Gemma 4 E4B IT vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-4.5-Air vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-4.7-Flash vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-5.3-Flash vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- GLM-5.3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- GLM-5.3 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- gpt-oss-120b vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- gpt-oss-120b vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- gpt-oss-20b vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- gpt-oss-20b vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 30B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 3B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Granite 4.2 8B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Hy-Memory-30B-A3B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Hy3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Hy3 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Inkling-Small vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Inkling-Small vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Inkling vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Inkling vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- InternVL3.5-GPT-OSS-20B-A4B-Preview vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kimi K3.1 Pro vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Kimi K3 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kimi K3 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Kolibri-1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kolibri-1 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Kronos vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Kronos vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Laguna M.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna M.1 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna S 2.1 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Laguna XS 2.1 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- LBS-27B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LBS-27B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM2.5-2.6B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- LFM3-1.7B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-1.7B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-Audio-2B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-Omni-2B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- LFM3-VL-2B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Ling-3.1-flash-1019
- Ling-3.0-tiny vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- 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-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
- MiMo-V2.6 Distill Qwen 9B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- MiniCPM-o 4.5 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 1B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- MiniCPM-V 4.7 35B-A3B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- MiniCPM5-2B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- MiniMax-M2.5 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- MiniMax-M2.7 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- MiniMax-M3.1-Flash vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Mistral Large 4 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Muse Glimmer 30B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Nanbeige4.3-33B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- NVIDIA Nemotron 3.5 Bolt E4B 4GB vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Nemotron 3.5 Lightning 30B A3B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Nemotron 3 Nano 30B A3B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Nemotron 3 Nano 4B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Nemotron 3 Nano Omni 30B A3B Reasoning vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Nemotron 3 Super 120B A12B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Nemotron 3 Ultra 550B A55B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- occamy-1.0 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Olmo 3 7B Think vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Ornith-1.5-122B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Ornith-1.5-35B-A3B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Ornith-1.5-397B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Ornith-1.5-9B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen-AgentWorld-35B-A3B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen3-4B-Instruct-2507 vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen3.5-0.8B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen3.5-2B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen3.5-397B-A17B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen3.5-4B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen3.5-9B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen3.6-27B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen3.8-27B vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B-Instruct vs Qwen3-Coder-Next
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Qwen3-Omni-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Qwen3-VL-2B-Instruct
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B-Instruct
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Qwen3-VL-32B-Instruct
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Qwopus3.8-27B-Flash-V2
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Recursive Flint
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Ripple-65B Preview
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs SmolLM3-3B
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Spark-X2.6-4B
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-27B
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Swift 1.5 Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs ThinkingCap (Qwen3.8 27B)
- Qwen3-Coder-Next vs Baidu Unlimited-OCR-2
Machine-readable
- This page as Markdown
/compare/ling-3-1-flash-1019-vs-qwen3-coder-next.md· slim.min.md· JSON.json(or sendAccept: text/markdown) - Each listing in full
/api/v1/tools/ling-3-1-flash-1019.json·/api/v1/tools/qwen3-coder-next.json - From a terminal
anchor compare ling-3-1-flash-1019 qwen3-coder-next(the CLI) - Over MCP
compare_tools {"a": "ling-3-1-flash-1019", "b": "qwen3-coder-next"}at/mcp, no key