Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Ling 2.6 Flash

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

68.59/100
Margin
24.7pts
← winning
Ling 2.6 Flash
InclusionAI
43.87/100
2 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.6 #16 (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 4.6 and Ling 2.6 Flash share 12 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 34 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.6; 6 to Ling 2.6 Flash.

Updated July 21, 2026
Shared results
12
Claude Opus 4.6 only
34
Ling 2.6 Flash only
6
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ling 2.6 Flash only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 2 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 4.6 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 68.59 to 43.87. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Opus 4.6's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 68.1 against 27. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 91.3% to 59%.

Claude Opus 4.6 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Ling 2.6 Flash.

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 scores and score margins for Claude Opus 4.6 and Ling 2.6 Flash
CategoryClaude Opus 4.6ΔLing 2.6 Flash
CodingClaude Opus 4.668.1Margin← 41.1Ling 2.6 Flash27.0
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.669.1Margin← 10.1Ling 2.6 Flash59.0
AgenticClaude Opus 4.673.0MarginNo overlapLing 2.6 FlashNot measured
MathClaude Opus 4.636.3MarginNo overlapLing 2.6 FlashNot measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.677.3MarginNo overlapLing 2.6 FlashNot measured
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapLing 2.6 Flash57.0

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Opus 4.6B · Ling 2.6 Flash

  1. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 91.3%B 59%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 32.3
    GPQA: Claude Opus 4.6 scored 91.3%; Ling 2.6 Flash scored 59%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Opus 4.6Ling 2.6 FlashComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 outputLing 2.6 FlashNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.640 tok/sLing 2.6 Flash209.5 tok/sLing 2.6 Flash has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.61.78 sLing 2.6 Flash1.07 sLing 2.6 Flash reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.61MLing 2.6 Flash262KClaude Opus 4.6 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Ling 2.6 FlashResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 65.4%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 83.7%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 72.7%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 84.8%86%Ling 2.6 Flash leads
Claw-EvalSource 70.4%—Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource 73.7%—Not comparable
CyberGymSource 66.6%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 61.85%—Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 19.9%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 36.7%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —2.2%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —545Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —2.3%Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Ling 2.6 FlashResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 80.8%—Not comparable
SWE-bench Verified*Source 75.6%—Not comparable
LiveCodeBench ProSource 70.7%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 53.4%—Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource 65.3%—Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 84.1%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 57.57%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 45.7%27.1%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 26.9%—Not comparable
SciCodeSource —27%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —25.3%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Ling 2.6 FlashResult
AA-LCRSource 58.3%25.0%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
CritPtSource 2.8%0.0%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Ling 2.6 FlashResult
GPQASource 91.3%59%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
GPQA-DSource 89.2%—Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 95%—Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 82%—Not comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source 89.1%—Not comparable
HLESource 53%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 40%—Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource 14.8%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source 52.1%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 37.8%14.1%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 84.0%59.3%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-HLESource 18.6%6.2%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 3.5%-65.7%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 45.2%15.4%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 76.0%95.8%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Ling 2.6 FlashResult
AIME25 (Arcee)Source 99.8%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 40.700%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 22.900%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Ling 2.6 FlashResult
MMMU-ProSource 77.3%—Not comparable
ERQASource 51.6%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 83.1%—Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source 64.8%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 72.5%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1325—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Ling 2.6 FlashResult
AA-IFBenchSource 44.6%57.4%Ling 2.6 Flash leads
IFBenchSource —57%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Ling 2.6 Flash?

Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 68.59 to 43.87. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 91.3% and 59%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.6 or Ling 2.6 Flash?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 69.1 versus 59. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Opus 4.6 or Ling 2.6 Flash?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 68.1 versus 27. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 21, 2026

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.