Skip to main content
BenchLM

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Ling 2.6 Flash

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 17 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.

85/100
Margin
48.0pts
← winning
Ling 2.6 Flash
InclusionAI
37/100
2 category wins0 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Opus 4.8 #3; Ling 2.6 Flash unranked

Evidence parity. Claude Opus 4.8 and Ling 2.6 Flash share 17 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 36 results are unique to Claude Opus 4.8; 2 to Ling 2.6 Flash.

Updated July 12, 2026
Shared results
17
Claude Opus 4.8 only
36
Ling 2.6 Flash only
2
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.8 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ling 2.6 Flash only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 17 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 4.8 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 85 to 37. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Opus 4.8's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 76.4 against 27. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 93.6% to 59%.

Claude Opus 4.8 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Ling 2.6 Flash is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Claude Opus 4.8 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 4.8 and Ling 2.6 Flash
CategoryClaude Opus 4.8ΔLing 2.6 Flash
CodingClaude Opus 4.876.4Margin← 49.4Ling 2.6 Flash27.0
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.862.7Margin← 3.7Ling 2.6 Flash59.0
AgenticClaude Opus 4.880.3MarginNo overlapLing 2.6 FlashNot measured
MathClaude Opus 4.853.9MarginNo overlapLing 2.6 FlashNot measured
MultimodalClaude Opus 4.877.0MarginNo overlapLing 2.6 FlashNot measured
Inst. FollowingClaude Opus 4.8Not 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 4.8B · Ling 2.6 Flash

  1. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 93.6%B 59%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.8Δ 34.6
    GPQA: Claude Opus 4.8 scored 93.6%; Ling 2.6 Flash scored 59%. Claude Opus 4.8 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Opus 4.8Ling 2.6 FlashComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Opus 4.8$5 input / $25 outputLing 2.6 FlashNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Opus 4.8Not availableLing 2.6 Flash209.5 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Opus 4.8Not availableLing 2.6 Flash1.07 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Opus 4.81MLing 2.6 Flash262KClaude Opus 4.8 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Ling 2.6 FlashResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 84.3%—Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource 93.1%—Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 83.4%—Not comparable
Finance Agent v2Source 53.9%—Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1600542Claude Opus 4.8 leads
MCP AtlasSource 82.2%—Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 59.9%—Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 72.97%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 47.2%2.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Tau2-TelecomSource 94.4%86%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
GDPval-AASource 55.0%2.1%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
ResearchClawBenchSource 21.1%—Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 20.6%—Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource 1354—Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 48.5%—Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource 44.0%—Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 7.5%—Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 27.6%—Not comparable
CodingClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Ling 2.6 FlashResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 88.6%—Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 69.2%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 84.4%—Not comparable
SWE MultimodalSource 38.4%—Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 74.6%—Not comparable
cursorBench31Source 58.4%—Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 62.3%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 74.3%25.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Terminal-Bench HardSource 58.3%21.2%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-SciCodeSource 53.5%27.1%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
FrontierCodeSource 46.5%—Not comparable
AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source 84.6%—Not comparable
SciCodeSource —27%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Ling 2.6 FlashResult
AA-LCRSource 67.7%25.0%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
CritPtSource 20.9%0.0%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
KnowledgeClaude Opus 4.8 wins
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Ling 2.6 FlashResult
GPQASource 93.6%59%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
GPQA-DSource 93.6%—Not comparable
HLESource 57.9%—Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 49.8%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 55.7%14.1%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.0%59.3%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-HLESource 45.7%6.2%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 27.4%-65.7%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 46.6%15.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 35.9%95.8%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
Math
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Ling 2.6 FlashResult
USAMO 2026Source 96.7%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 47.241%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 31.250%—Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Ling 2.6 FlashResult
INCLUDESource 87.6%—Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Ling 2.6 FlashResult
OfficeQA ProSource 66.2%—Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 87.9%—Not comparable
CharXivSource 89.9%—Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 80.5%—Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1281—Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Ling 2.6 FlashResult
AA-IFBenchSource 62.2%57.4%Claude Opus 4.8 leads
IFBenchSource —57%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.8 or Ling 2.6 Flash?

Claude Opus 4.8 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 85 to 37. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 93.6% and 59%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Opus 4.8 or Ling 2.6 Flash?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 62.7 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 4.8 or Ling 2.6 Flash?

Claude Opus 4.8 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 76.4 versus 27. Inside this category, AA Coding Index 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 12, 2026

The AI models change fast. We track them for you.

A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.