Skip to main content

Model comparison

Gemma 4 26B A4B vs Ling 2.6 Flash

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

57.96/100
Margin
14.1pts
← winning
InclusionAI
43.87/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 26B A4B #67 (Supported); Ling 2.6 Flash #154 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Gemma 4 26B A4B and Ling 2.6 Flash share 15 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 5 results are unique to Gemma 4 26B A4B; 3 to Ling 2.6 Flash.

Updated July 21, 2026
Shared results
15
Gemma 4 26B A4B only
5
Ling 2.6 Flash only
3
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Gemma 4 26B A4B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ling 2.6 Flash only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 262K context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Gemma 4 26B A4B is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 57.96 to 43.87. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Gemma 4 26B A4B 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. Ling 2.6 Flash gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 256K for Gemma 4 26B A4B.

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 Gemma 4 26B A4B and Ling 2.6 Flash
CategoryGemma 4 26B A4BΔLing 2.6 Flash
KnowledgeGemma 4 26B A4B43.4Margin 15.6Ling 2.6 Flash59.0
CodingGemma 4 26B A4BNot measuredMarginNo overlapLing 2.6 Flash27.0
MultimodalGemma 4 26B A4B73.8MarginNo overlapLing 2.6 FlashNot measured
Inst. FollowingGemma 4 26B A4BNot measuredMarginNo overlapLing 2.6 Flash57.0

Operational comparison

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

MetricGemma 4 26B A4BLing 2.6 FlashComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGemma 4 26B A4B$0 input / $0 outputLing 2.6 FlashNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGemma 4 26B A4BNot availableLing 2.6 Flash209.5 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGemma 4 26B A4BNot availableLing 2.6 Flash1.07 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGemma 4 26B A4B256KLing 2.6 Flash262KLing 2.6 Flash lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BLing 2.6 FlashResult
AA Agentic IndexSource 11.0%2.3%Gemma 4 26B A4B leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 43.6%86%Ling 2.6 Flash leads
GDPval-AASource 13.1%2.2%Gemma 4 26B A4B leads
GDPval-AASource 761545Gemma 4 26B A4B leads
Coding
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BLing 2.6 FlashResult
AA Coding IndexSource 39.3%25.3%Gemma 4 26B A4B leads
AA-SciCodeSource 40.0%27.1%Gemma 4 26B A4B leads
SciCodeSource 27%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BLing 2.6 FlashResult
AA-LCRSource 55.7%25.0%Gemma 4 26B A4B leads
CritPtSource 0.0%0.0%Tie
KnowledgeLing 2.6 Flash wins
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BLing 2.6 FlashResult
MMLU-ProSource 82.6%Not comparable
HLESource 17.2%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 8.7%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 25.7%14.1%Gemma 4 26B A4B leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 79.2%59.3%Gemma 4 26B A4B leads
AA-HLESource 18.3%6.2%Gemma 4 26B A4B leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -48.1%-65.7%Gemma 4 26B A4B leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 18.2%15.4%Gemma 4 26B A4B leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 80.9%95.8%Gemma 4 26B A4B leads
GPQASource 59%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BLing 2.6 FlashResult
MMMU-ProSource 73.8%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 69.2%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGemma 4 26B A4BLing 2.6 FlashResult
AA-IFBenchSource 72.4%57.4%Gemma 4 26B A4B leads
IFBenchSource 57%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Ling 2.6 Flash?

Gemma 4 26B A4B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 57.96 to 43.87.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemma 4 26B A4B or Ling 2.6 Flash?

Ling 2.6 Flash has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 59 versus 43.4. Inside this category, AA-GPQA Diamond 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.