Model comparison
GPT-4 Turbo vs Ling 2.6 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GPT-4 Turbo #188 (Supported); Ling 2.6 Flash #154 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GPT-4 Turbo and Ling 2.6 Flash share 4 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to GPT-4 Turbo; 14 to Ling 2.6 Flash.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 4
- GPT-4 Turbo only
- 0
- Ling 2.6 Flash only
- 14
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for GPT-4 Turbo and Ling 2.6 Flash is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 4 shared benchmark results across 2 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.
Ling 2.6 Flash has the larger context window at 262K, compared with 128K for GPT-4 Turbo.
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 | GPT-4 Turbo | Δ | Ling 2.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | GPT-4 TurboNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Ling 2.6 Flash27.0 |
| Knowledge | GPT-4 TurboNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Ling 2.6 Flash59.0 |
| Inst. Following | GPT-4 TurboNot 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 | GPT-4 Turbo | Ling 2.6 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-4 Turbo$10 input / $30 output | Ling 2.6 FlashNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-4 Turbo30 tok/s | Ling 2.6 Flash209.5 tok/s | Ling 2.6 Flash has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-4 Turbo2.84 s | Ling 2.6 Flash1.07 s | Ling 2.6 Flash reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-4 Turbo128K | Ling 2.6 Flash262K | Ling 2.6 Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic4 benchmarks
Coding3 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-4 Turbo | Ling 2.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 7.9% | 14.1% | Ling 2.6 Flash leads |
| AA-HLESource | 3.3% | 6.2% | Ling 2.6 Flash leads |
| GPQASource | — | 59% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 59.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -65.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 15.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 95.8% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare GPT-4 Turbo 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 GPT-4 Turbo and Ling 2.6 Flash today?
GPT-4 Turbo: $10.00 input / $30.00 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.