Model comparison
Grok Code Fast 1 vs Ling 2.6 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 11 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Grok Code Fast 1 #180 (Supported); Ling 2.6 Flash #154 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Grok Code Fast 1 and Ling 2.6 Flash share 11 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Grok Code Fast 1; 7 to Ling 2.6 Flash.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 11
- Grok Code Fast 1 only
- 1
- Ling 2.6 Flash only
- 7
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
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.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 11 shared benchmark results across 5 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
Ling 2.6 Flash is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 43.87 to 38.64. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Ling 2.6 Flash gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 256K for Grok Code Fast 1.
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 Code Fast 1 | Δ | Ling 2.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Grok Code Fast 170.8 | Margin← 43.8 | Ling 2.6 Flash27.0 |
| Knowledge | Grok Code Fast 1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Ling 2.6 Flash59.0 |
| Inst. Following | Grok Code Fast 1Not 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 Code Fast 1 | Ling 2.6 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Grok Code Fast 1$0.2 input / $1.5 output | Ling 2.6 FlashNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Grok Code Fast 1172 tok/s | Ling 2.6 Flash209.5 tok/s | Ling 2.6 Flash has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Grok Code Fast 12.81 s | Ling 2.6 Flash1.07 s | Ling 2.6 Flash reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Grok Code Fast 1256K | Ling 2.6 Flash262K | Ling 2.6 Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic4 benchmarks
CodingGrok Code Fast 1 wins4 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok Code Fast 1 | Ling 2.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 21.6% | 14.1% | Grok Code Fast 1 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 72.7% | 59.3% | Grok Code Fast 1 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 7.5% | 6.2% | Grok Code Fast 1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -36.0% | -65.7% | Grok Code Fast 1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 23.8% | 15.4% | Grok Code Fast 1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 78.5% | 95.8% | Grok Code Fast 1 leads |
| GPQASource | — | 59% | Not comparable |
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 BenchAlign leaderboard, 43.87 to 38.64.
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. Inside this category, AA-SciCode 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.