Model comparison
GPT-5.5 vs Ling 2.6 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 16 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GPT-5.5 #9 (Estimated); Ling 2.6 Flash #154 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GPT-5.5 and Ling 2.6 Flash share 16 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 41 results are unique to GPT-5.5; 2 to Ling 2.6 Flash.
Updated July 22, 2026- Shared results
- 16
- GPT-5.5 only
- 41
- Ling 2.6 Flash only
- 2
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick GPT-5.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ling 2.6 Flash only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 16 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
GPT-5.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 73.51 to 43.87. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 58.6 against 27. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 93.6% to 59%. Ling 2.6 Flash does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
GPT-5.5 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. GPT-5.5 gives you 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 | GPT-5.5 | Δ | Ling 2.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | GPT-5.558.6 | Margin← 31.6 | Ling 2.6 Flash27.0 |
| Knowledge | GPT-5.557.8 | Margin→ 1.2 | Ling 2.6 Flash59.0 |
| Agentic | GPT-5.581.6 | MarginNo overlap | Ling 2.6 FlashNot measured |
| Reasoning | GPT-5.585.0 | MarginNo overlap | Ling 2.6 FlashNot measured |
| Math | GPT-5.547.6 | MarginNo overlap | Ling 2.6 FlashNot measured |
| Multimodal | GPT-5.570.4 | MarginNo overlap | Ling 2.6 FlashNot measured |
| Inst. Following | GPT-5.5Not 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 93.6%B 59%Winner: GPT-5.5Δ 34.6GPQA: GPT-5.5 scored 93.6%; Ling 2.6 Flash scored 59%. GPT-5.5 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GPT-5.5 | Ling 2.6 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-5.5$5 input / $30 output | Ling 2.6 FlashNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-5.5Not available | Ling 2.6 Flash209.5 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-5.5Not available | Ling 2.6 Flash1.07 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-5.51M | Ling 2.6 Flash262K | GPT-5.5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic24 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 | Ling 2.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 82% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 81.8% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | 84.4% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 78.7% | — | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | 75.3% | — | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | 55.6% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 93.9% | 86% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 44.9% | 2.3% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | 37.7% | — | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | 49.5% | 2.2% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1490 | 545 | GPT-5.5 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 72.93% | — | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | 17.0% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 13.0% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 42.7% | — | Not comparable |
| ExploitGymSource | 13.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1154 | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 42.1% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 46.6% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 86.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | 45.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 31.3% | — | Not comparable |
| terminalBenchHardSource | 60.6% | — | Not comparable |
| aaTerminalBench21Source | 84.3% | — | Not comparable |
CodingGPT-5.5 wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 | Ling 2.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench ProSource | 58.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 82.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 69.85% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 84.7% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | 59.2% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 58.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 74.9% | 25.3% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 56.1% | 27.1% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 43.0% | — | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 27% | Not comparable |
Reasoning5 benchmarks
KnowledgeLing 2.6 Flash wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 | Ling 2.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 93.6% | 59% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 93.6% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 52.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 41.4% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 54.8% | 14.1% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 93.5% | 59.3% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 44.3% | 6.2% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 20.1% | -65.7% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 56.9% | 15.4% | GPT-5.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 85.5% | 95.8% | GPT-5.5 leads |
Math3 benchmarks
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, GPT-5.5 or Ling 2.6 Flash?
GPT-5.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 73.51 to 43.87. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 93.6% and 59%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GPT-5.5 or Ling 2.6 Flash?
Ling 2.6 Flash has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 59 versus 57.8. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, GPT-5.5 or Ling 2.6 Flash?
GPT-5.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 58.6 versus 27. Inside this category, AA Coding Index 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.