Model comparison
Grok 4.5 vs Ling 2.6 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
BenchAlign evidence: Grok 4.5 supported; Ling 2.6 Flash estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Grok 4.5 and Ling 2.6 Flash share 13 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 14 results are unique to Grok 4.5; 6 to Ling 2.6 Flash.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- Grok 4.5 only
- 14
- Ling 2.6 Flash only
- 6
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Grok 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ling 2.6 Flash only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 4 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
Grok 4.5 is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 80 to 36. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Grok 4.5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 64.7 against 27.
Grok 4.5 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. Grok 4.5 gives you the larger context window at 500K, 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 | Grok 4.5 | Δ | Ling 2.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Grok 4.564.7 | Margin← 37.7 | Ling 2.6 Flash27.0 |
| Agentic | Grok 4.583.3 | MarginNo overlap | Ling 2.6 FlashNot measured |
| Knowledge | Grok 4.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Ling 2.6 Flash59.0 |
| Inst. Following | Grok 4.5Not 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 | Grok 4.5 | Ling 2.6 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Grok 4.5$2 input / $6 output | Ling 2.6 FlashNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Grok 4.5Not available | Ling 2.6 Flash209.5 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Grok 4.5Not available | Ling 2.6 Flash1.07 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Grok 4.5500K | Ling 2.6 Flash262K | Grok 4.5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Ling 2.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 83.3% | — | Not comparable |
| deepSweSource | 53% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 45.7% | 2.3% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 51.9% | 2.2% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 1539 | 545 | Grok 4.5 leads |
| AA BriefcaseSource | 1324 | — | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | 51.4% | — | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | 40.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | 13.3% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | 32.6% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 86% | Not comparable |
CodingGrok 4.5 wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Ling 2.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench ProSource | 64.7% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | 78% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 83.3% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench32Source | 66.7% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 72.5% | 25.3% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 54.1% | 27.1% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | 81.6% | — | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 27% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | — | 21.2% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok 4.5 | Ling 2.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 53.8% | 14.1% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 93.1% | 59.3% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 40.3% | 6.2% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | 26.4% | -65.7% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 52.1% | 15.4% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 53.5% | 95.8% | Grok 4.5 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 59% | Not comparable |
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Grok 4.5 or Ling 2.6 Flash?
Grok 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 80 to 36.
Which is better for coding, Grok 4.5 or Ling 2.6 Flash?
Grok 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 64.7 versus 27. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.