Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.5 vs Ling 2.6 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.5 #34 (Supported); Ling 2.6 Flash #154 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.5 and Ling 2.6 Flash share 13 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 46 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.5; 5 to Ling 2.6 Flash.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- Claude Opus 4.5 only
- 46
- Ling 2.6 Flash only
- 5
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Claude Opus 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ling 2.6 Flash only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 262K context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Opus 4.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 64.22 to 43.87. 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 71.7 against 27. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 87% to 59%. Ling 2.6 Flash does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Ling 2.6 Flash gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 200K for Claude Opus 4.5.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Claude Opus 4.5 | Δ | Ling 2.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.571.7 | Margin← 44.7 | Ling 2.6 Flash27.0 |
| Inst. Following | Claude Opus 4.569.5 | Margin← 12.5 | Ling 2.6 Flash57.0 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.558.1 | Margin→ 0.9 | Ling 2.6 Flash59.0 |
| Agentic | Claude Opus 4.562.6 | MarginNo overlap | Ling 2.6 FlashNot measured |
| Reasoning | Claude Opus 4.564.4 | MarginNo overlap | Ling 2.6 FlashNot measured |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.557.5 | MarginNo overlap | Ling 2.6 FlashNot measured |
| Multilingual | Claude Opus 4.585.7 | MarginNo overlap | Ling 2.6 FlashNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Opus 4.569.9 | MarginNo overlap | Ling 2.6 FlashNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 87%B 59%Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 28GPQA: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 87%; Ling 2.6 Flash scored 59%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
IFBench
Inst. FollowingA 58%B 57%Winner: Claude Opus 4.5Δ 1IFBench: Claude Opus 4.5 scored 58%; Ling 2.6 Flash scored 57%. Claude Opus 4.5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.5 | Ling 2.6 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.5$5 input / $25 output | Ling 2.6 FlashNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.546 tok/s | Ling 2.6 Flash209.5 tok/s | Ling 2.6 Flash has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.51.01 s | Ling 2.6 Flash1.07 s | Claude Opus 4.5 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.5200K | Ling 2.6 Flash262K | Ling 2.6 Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic19 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Ling 2.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 59.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 66.3% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorldSource | 66.3% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 59.6% | — | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | 52.3% | — | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | 70.2% | — | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | 23.3% | — | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | 26.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 43.5% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 42.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | 71.8% | — | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | 76.4% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 50.6% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 86.3% | 86% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 64.23% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 32.3% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 2.2% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 545 | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 2.3% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Opus 4.5 wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Ling 2.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 80.9% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | 84.8% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | 57.1% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 77.5% | — | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | 43.2% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 47.0% | 27.1% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| SciCodeSource | — | 27% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 25.3% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeLing 2.6 Flash wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Ling 2.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 87% | 59% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| SuperGPQASource | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 89.5% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | 96.6% | — | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | 92.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 30.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 34.7% | 14.1% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 81.0% | 59.3% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 12.9% | 6.2% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -3.9% | -65.7% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 40.7% | 15.4% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 75.4% | 95.8% | Claude Opus 4.5 leads |
| AA MMLU-ProSource | 88.9% | — | Not comparable |
Math7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Ling 2.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | 95.1% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | 92.9% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | 93.3% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | 85.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | 84.0% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 20.690% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 4.167% | — | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.5 | Ling 2.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 70.6% | — | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | 74.3% | — | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | 68.5% | — | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | 84.4% | — | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | 45.7% | — | Not comparable |
| V*Source | 67.0% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 71.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1277 | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or Ling 2.6 Flash?
Claude Opus 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 64.22 to 43.87. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 87% and 59%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.5 or Ling 2.6 Flash?
Ling 2.6 Flash has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 59 versus 58.1. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.5 or Ling 2.6 Flash?
Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 71.7 versus 27. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for instruction following, Claude Opus 4.5 or Ling 2.6 Flash?
Claude Opus 4.5 has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 69.5 versus 57. Inside this category, AA-IFBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.