Skip to main content

Grok Code Fast 1 vs Ling 2.6 Flash

Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.

Grok Code Fast 1

42

VS

Ling 2.6 Flash

44

1 categoriesvs0 categories

Pick Ling 2.6 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok Code Fast 1 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.

Category Radar

Head-to-Head by Category

Category Breakdown

Coding

Grok Code Fast 1
70.8vs27

+43.8 difference

Operational Comparison

Grok Code Fast 1

Ling 2.6 Flash

Price (per 1M tokens)

$null / $null

$0.1 / $0.3

Speed

172 t/s

209.5 t/s

Latency (TTFT)

2.81s

1.07s

Context Window

256K

262K

Quick Verdict

Pick Ling 2.6 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok Code Fast 1 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.

Ling 2.6 Flash has the cleaner provisional overall profile here, landing at 44 versus 42. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Ling 2.6 Flash gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 256K for Grok Code Fast 1.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Grok Code Fast 1 or Ling 2.6 Flash?

Ling 2.6 Flash is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 44 to 42.

Which is better for coding, Grok Code Fast 1 or Ling 2.6 Flash?

Grok Code Fast 1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 70.8 versus 27. 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.