Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Ling 2.6 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.5 #96 (Estimated); Ling 2.6 Flash #154 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Ling 2.6 Flash share 1 comparable benchmark result. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 11 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.5; 17 to Ling 2.6 Flash.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Claude Sonnet 4.5 only
- 11
- Ling 2.6 Flash only
- 17
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Claude Sonnet 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.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 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 Sonnet 4.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 53.61 to 43.87. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Sonnet 4.5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 77.2 against 27. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 83.4% to 59%.
Ling 2.6 Flash gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 200K for Claude Sonnet 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 Sonnet 4.5 | Δ | Ling 2.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Sonnet 4.577.2 | Margin← 50.2 | Ling 2.6 Flash27.0 |
| Knowledge | Claude Sonnet 4.583.4 | Margin← 24.4 | Ling 2.6 Flash59.0 |
| Agentic | Claude Sonnet 4.555.4 | MarginNo overlap | Ling 2.6 FlashNot measured |
| Reasoning | Claude Sonnet 4.513.6 | MarginNo overlap | Ling 2.6 FlashNot measured |
| Math | Claude Sonnet 4.511.2 | MarginNo overlap | Ling 2.6 FlashNot measured |
| Inst. Following | Claude Sonnet 4.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Ling 2.6 Flash57.0 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 83.4%B 59%Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.5Δ 24.4GPQA: Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 83.4%; Ling 2.6 Flash scored 59%. Claude Sonnet 4.5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Ling 2.6 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.5$3 input / $15 output | Ling 2.6 FlashNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Sonnet 4.5Not available | Ling 2.6 Flash209.5 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Sonnet 4.5Not available | Ling 2.6 Flash1.07 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.5200K | Ling 2.6 Flash262K | Ling 2.6 Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Ling 2.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 50% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 61.4% | — | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | 17.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | 48.51% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 27.7% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 86% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 2.2% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 545 | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 2.3% | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.5 wins4 benchmarks
Reasoning3 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.5 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Ling 2.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 83.4% | 59% | Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 14.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 59.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 6.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -65.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 15.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 95.8% | Not comparable |
Math3 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Ling 2.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1219 | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Ling 2.6 Flash?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 53.61 to 43.87. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 83.4% and 59%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Ling 2.6 Flash?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 83.4 versus 59. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Ling 2.6 Flash?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.2 versus 27. Ling 2.6 Flash stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
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.