Skip to main content

Model comparison

Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Ling 2.6 Flash

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 16 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

57.25/100
Margin
13.4pts
← winning
InclusionAI
43.87/100
1 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 2.5 Pro #70 (Supported); Ling 2.6 Flash #154 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Gemini 2.5 Pro and Ling 2.6 Flash share 16 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 8 results are unique to Gemini 2.5 Pro; 2 to Ling 2.6 Flash.

Updated July 21, 2026
Shared results
16
Gemini 2.5 Pro only
8
Ling 2.6 Flash only
2
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Gemini 2.5 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ling 2.6 Flash only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 16 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

Gemini 2.5 Pro is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 57.25 to 43.87. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Gemini 2.5 Pro's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 63.8 against 27. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 83% 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.

Gemini 2.5 Pro 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 Gemini 2.5 Pro and Ling 2.6 Flash
CategoryGemini 2.5 ProΔLing 2.6 Flash
CodingGemini 2.5 Pro63.8Margin 36.8Ling 2.6 Flash27.0
KnowledgeGemini 2.5 Pro27.4Margin 31.6Ling 2.6 Flash59.0
MathGemini 2.5 Pro11.6MarginNo overlapLing 2.6 FlashNot measured
Inst. FollowingGemini 2.5 ProNot measuredMarginNo overlapLing 2.6 Flash57.0

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Gemini 2.5 ProB · Ling 2.6 Flash
  1. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 83%B 59%
    Winner: Gemini 2.5 ProΔ 24
    GPQA: Gemini 2.5 Pro scored 83%; Ling 2.6 Flash scored 59%. Gemini 2.5 Pro wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricGemini 2.5 ProLing 2.6 FlashComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGemini 2.5 Pro$1.25 input / $10 outputLing 2.6 FlashNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGemini 2.5 Pro117 tok/sLing 2.6 Flash209.5 tok/sLing 2.6 Flash has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGemini 2.5 Pro21.19 sLing 2.6 Flash1.07 sLing 2.6 Flash reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGemini 2.5 Pro1MLing 2.6 Flash262KGemini 2.5 Pro lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProLing 2.6 FlashResult
AA Agentic IndexSource 7.1%2.3%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 54.1%86%Ling 2.6 Flash leads
Gert LabsSource 42.01%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 8.3%2.2%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
GDPval-AASource 665545Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
CodingGemini 2.5 Pro wins
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProLing 2.6 FlashResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 63.8%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 0.40%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 33.3%25.3%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
AA-SciCodeSource 42.8%27.1%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
SciCodeSource 27%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProLing 2.6 FlashResult
AA-LCRSource 66.0%25.0%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
CritPtSource 2.6%0.0%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
KnowledgeLing 2.6 Flash wins
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProLing 2.6 FlashResult
GPQASource 83%59%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
HLESource 18.8%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 25.8%14.1%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 84.4%59.3%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
AA-HLESource 21.1%6.2%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -14.3%-65.7%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 39.0%15.4%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 87.4%95.8%Gemini 2.5 Pro leads
Math
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProLing 2.6 FlashResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 14.138%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 4.167%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProLing 2.6 FlashResult
AA-MMMU-ProSource 74.9%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1197Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGemini 2.5 ProLing 2.6 FlashResult
AA-IFBenchSource 48.7%57.4%Ling 2.6 Flash leads
IFBenchSource 57%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Ling 2.6 Flash?

Gemini 2.5 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 57.25 to 43.87. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 83% and 59%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Ling 2.6 Flash?

Ling 2.6 Flash has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 59 versus 27.4. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Gemini 2.5 Pro or Ling 2.6 Flash?

Gemini 2.5 Pro has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 63.8 versus 27. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

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.