Head-to-head comparison across 3benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Opus 4.5
80
Ling 2.6 Flash
44
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #7 · Ling 2.6 Flash unranked
Pick Claude Opus 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ling 2.6 Flash only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 262K context window.
Coding
+38.9 difference
Knowledge
+7.2 difference
Inst. Following
+22.4 difference
Claude Opus 4.5
Ling 2.6 Flash
$null / $null
$0.1 / $0.3
46 t/s
209.5 t/s
1.01s
1.07s
200K
262K
Pick Claude Opus 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ling 2.6 Flash only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 262K context window.
Claude Opus 4.5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 80 to 44. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Opus 4.5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 65.9 against 27. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 87% to 59%.
Ling 2.6 Flash gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 200K for Claude Opus 4.5.
Claude Opus 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 80 to 44. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 87% and 59%.
Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 66.2 versus 59. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 65.9 versus 27. Ling 2.6 Flash stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 79.4 versus 57. Inside this category, IFBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.