Model comparison
Claude Opus 4.7 vs Ling 2.6 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 11 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.7 #12 (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 4.7 and Ling 2.6 Flash share 11 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 10 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.7; 7 to Ling 2.6 Flash.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 11
- Claude Opus 4.7 only
- 10
- Ling 2.6 Flash only
- 7
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Claude Opus 4.7 and Ling 2.6 Flash is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 11 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.
Claude Opus 4.7 has 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 | Claude Opus 4.7 | Δ | Ling 2.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Ling 2.6 Flash27.0 |
| Knowledge | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Ling 2.6 Flash59.0 |
| Math | Claude Opus 4.738.6 | MarginNo overlap | Ling 2.6 FlashNot measured |
| Inst. Following | Claude Opus 4.7Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Ling 2.6 Flash57.0 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Opus 4.7 | Ling 2.6 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Opus 4.7$5 input / $25 output | Ling 2.6 FlashNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Opus 4.7Not available | Ling 2.6 Flash209.5 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Opus 4.7Not available | Ling 2.6 Flash1.07 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Opus 4.71M | Ling 2.6 Flash262K | Claude Opus 4.7 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Ling 2.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 74% | 86% | Ling 2.6 Flash leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 65.59% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 20.7% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 13.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 2.2% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 545 | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 2.3% | Not comparable |
Coding6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Ling 2.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 71.00% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 82.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 50.1% | 27.1% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 38.5% | — | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 27% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 25.3% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Opus 4.7 | Ling 2.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 42.7% | 14.1% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 88.5% | 59.3% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 31.2% | 6.2% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 14.2% | -65.7% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 43.5% | 15.4% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 51.9% | 95.8% | Claude Opus 4.7 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 59% | Not comparable |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Claude Opus 4.7 and Ling 2.6 Flash on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for Claude Opus 4.7 and Ling 2.6 Flash today?
Claude Opus 4.7: $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens Ling 2.6 Flash: Pricing unavailable Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
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.