Skip to main content

GPT-4.1 nano vs Ling 2.6 Flash

Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.

GPT-4.1 nano

28

VS

Ling 2.6 Flash

44

1 categoriesvs1 categories

Pick Ling 2.6 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 nano only becomes the better choice if instruction following is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.

Category Radar

Head-to-Head by Category

Category Breakdown

Knowledge

Ling 2.6 Flash
50.3vs59

+8.7 difference

Inst. Following

GPT-4.1 nano
83.2vs57

+26.2 difference

Operational Comparison

GPT-4.1 nano

Ling 2.6 Flash

Price (per 1M tokens)

$0.1 / $0.4

$0.1 / $0.3

Speed

181 t/s

209.5 t/s

Latency (TTFT)

0.63s

1.07s

Context Window

1M

262K

Quick Verdict

Pick Ling 2.6 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-4.1 nano only becomes the better choice if instruction following is the priority or you need the larger 1M context window.

Ling 2.6 Flash is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 44 to 28. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Ling 2.6 Flash's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 59 against 50.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 50.3% to 59%. GPT-4.1 nano does hit back in instruction following, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

GPT-4.1 nano is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.10 input / $0.40 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.10 input / $0.30 output per 1M tokens for Ling 2.6 Flash. GPT-4.1 nano gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Ling 2.6 Flash.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, GPT-4.1 nano or Ling 2.6 Flash?

Ling 2.6 Flash is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 44 to 28. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 50.3% and 59%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, GPT-4.1 nano or Ling 2.6 Flash?

Ling 2.6 Flash has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 59 versus 50.3. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for instruction following, GPT-4.1 nano or Ling 2.6 Flash?

GPT-4.1 nano has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 83.2 versus 57. Ling 2.6 Flash stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: April 22, 2026

The AI models change fast. We track them for you.

For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.