Model comparison
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite vs Ling 2.6 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite #111 (Supported); Ling 2.6 Flash #154 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and Ling 2.6 Flash share 15 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 5 results are unique to Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite; 3 to Ling 2.6 Flash.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 15
- Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite only
- 5
- Ling 2.6 Flash only
- 3
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and Ling 2.6 Flash is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 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.
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 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 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Δ | Ling 2.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Ling 2.6 Flash27.0 |
| Knowledge | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Ling 2.6 Flash59.0 |
| Multimodal | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite73.2 | MarginNo overlap | Ling 2.6 FlashNot measured |
| Inst. Following | Gemini 3.1 Flash-LiteNot 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 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Ling 2.6 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite$0.25 input / $1.5 output | Ling 2.6 FlashNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite205 tok/s | Ling 2.6 Flash209.5 tok/s | Ling 2.6 Flash has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite7.50 s | Ling 2.6 Flash1.07 s | Ling 2.6 Flash reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite1M | Ling 2.6 Flash262K | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Ling 2.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 6.2% | 2.3% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 12.2% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 31.3% | 86% | Ling 2.6 Flash leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 7.1% | 2.2% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 642 | 545 | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 38.46% | — | Not comparable |
Coding4 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite | Ling 2.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.0% | 14.1% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 82.2% | 59.3% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-HLESource | 16.2% | 6.2% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -15.5% | -65.7% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 36.4% | 15.4% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 81.6% | 95.8% | Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite leads |
| GPQASource | — | 59% | Not comparable |
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 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 Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite and Ling 2.6 Flash today?
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite: $0.25 input / $1.50 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
Explore More
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.