Model comparison
Gemma 4 E2B vs Ling 2.6 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemma 4 E2B #162 (Estimated); Ling 2.6 Flash #154 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemma 4 E2B and Ling 2.6 Flash share 12 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Gemma 4 E2B; 6 to Ling 2.6 Flash.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 12
- Gemma 4 E2B only
- 2
- Ling 2.6 Flash only
- 6
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Ling 2.6 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Gemma 4 E2B only becomes the better choice if you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 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
Ling 2.6 Flash has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 43.87 versus 41.82. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Ling 2.6 Flash's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 59 against 56.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 43.4% to 59%.
Gemma 4 E2B 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 128K for Gemma 4 E2B.
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 | Gemma 4 E2B | Δ | Ling 2.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Gemma 4 E2B56.9 | Margin→ 2.1 | Ling 2.6 Flash59.0 |
| Coding | Gemma 4 E2BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Ling 2.6 Flash27.0 |
| Inst. Following | Gemma 4 E2BNot 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 43.4%B 59%Winner: Ling 2.6 FlashΔ 15.6GPQA: Gemma 4 E2B scored 43.4%; Ling 2.6 Flash scored 59%. Ling 2.6 Flash wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemma 4 E2B | Ling 2.6 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemma 4 E2B$0 input / $0 output | Ling 2.6 FlashNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemma 4 E2BNot available | Ling 2.6 Flash209.5 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemma 4 E2BNot available | Ling 2.6 Flash1.07 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemma 4 E2B128K | Ling 2.6 Flash262K | Ling 2.6 Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic4 benchmarks
Coding3 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeLing 2.6 Flash wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 E2B | Ling 2.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 43.4% | 59% | Ling 2.6 Flash leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 60% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 9.3% | 14.1% | Ling 2.6 Flash leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 37.5% | 59.3% | Ling 2.6 Flash leads |
| AA-HLESource | 4.8% | 6.2% | Ling 2.6 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -24.0% | -65.7% | Gemma 4 E2B leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 6.7% | 15.4% | Ling 2.6 Flash leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 32.9% | 95.8% | Gemma 4 E2B leads |
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 4 E2B | Ling 2.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 44.6% | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Gemma 4 E2B or Ling 2.6 Flash?
Ling 2.6 Flash is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 43.87 to 41.82. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 43.4% and 59%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Gemma 4 E2B or Ling 2.6 Flash?
Ling 2.6 Flash has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 59 versus 56.9. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.