Skip to main content

Model comparison

GPT-5.6 Luna vs Ling 3.0 Flash

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

No sourced benchmark result is currently shared by both models. This page therefore compares only the available metadata, pricing, and runtime rows; it does not name a quality winner.
66.59/100
No comparison
InclusionAI
N/A
0 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: GPT-5.6 Luna #24 (Estimated); Ling 3.0 Flash unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. GPT-5.6 Luna and Ling 3.0 Flash share 0 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 42 results are unique to GPT-5.6 Luna; 0 to Ling 3.0 Flash.

Updated July 24, 2026
Shared results
0
GPT-5.6 Luna only
42
Ling 3.0 Flash only
0
Comparable categories
0 / 8

Benchmark data for GPT-5.6 Luna and Ling 3.0 Flash is coming soon on BenchLM.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 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 does not have sourced benchmark coverage for Ling 3.0 Flash yet. This comparison is currently limited to metadata such as context window, reasoning mode, and pricing where available.

GPT-5.6 Luna has the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Ling 3.0 Flash.

Operational comparison

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

MetricGPT-5.6 LunaLing 3.0 FlashComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGPT-5.6 Luna$1 input / $6 outputLing 3.0 FlashNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGPT-5.6 LunaNot availableLing 3.0 FlashNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGPT-5.6 LunaNot availableLing 3.0 FlashNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGPT-5.6 Luna1MLing 3.0 Flash262KGPT-5.6 Luna lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkGPT-5.6 LunaLing 3.0 FlashResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 84.7%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 83.3%Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 45.6%Not comparable
CyberGymSource 77.9%Not comparable
ExploitGymSource 12.4%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 53.4%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 45.6%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 54.1%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1582Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource 87.9%Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource 40.3%Not comparable
AA Tau3 BankingSource 27.2%Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource 42.2%Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source 80.9%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource 35.8%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGPT-5.6 LunaLing 3.0 FlashResult
SWE-bench ProSource 62.7%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 84.7%Not comparable
deepSweSource 67.2%Not comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 ExtendedSource 55.1%Not comparable
cursorBench32Source 61.1%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 71.5%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 52.5%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGPT-5.6 LunaLing 3.0 FlashResult
ARC-AGI-2Source 59.5%Not comparable
ARC-AGI-3Source 0.2%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 74.0%Not comparable
CritPtSource 20.6%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkGPT-5.6 LunaLing 3.0 FlashResult
GPQASource 92.3%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 92.3%Not comparable
HealthBench ProfessionalSource 55.7%Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource 32.0%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 51.2%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 91.1%Not comparable
AA-HLESource 37.2%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -11.2%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 41.5%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 90.1%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkGPT-5.6 LunaLing 3.0 FlashResult
FrontierMath (legacy)Source 78.6%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 78.600%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 58.500%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGPT-5.6 LunaLing 3.0 FlashResult
MMMU-ProSource 78.4%Not comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource 79.5%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 78.6%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Can I compare GPT-5.6 Luna and Ling 3.0 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-5.6 Luna and Ling 3.0 Flash today?

GPT-5.6 Luna: $1.00 input / $6.00 output per 1M tokens Ling 3.0 Flash: Pricing unavailable Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 24, 2026