Model comparison
Holo3-35B-A3B vs Ling 2.6 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Evidence parity. Holo3-35B-A3B and Ling 2.6 Flash share 0 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Holo3-35B-A3B; 19 to Ling 2.6 Flash.
Updated July 14, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- Holo3-35B-A3B only
- 1
- Ling 2.6 Flash only
- 19
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Holo3-35B-A3B and Ling 2.6 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 has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.
Ling 2.6 Flash has the larger context window at 262K, compared with 64K for Holo3-35B-A3B.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Holo3-35B-A3B | Ling 2.6 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Holo3-35B-A3BNot available | Ling 2.6 FlashNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Holo3-35B-A3BNot available | Ling 2.6 Flash209.5 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Holo3-35B-A3BNot available | Ling 2.6 Flash1.07 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Holo3-35B-A3B64K | Ling 2.6 Flash262K | Ling 2.6 Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic5 benchmarks
Coding4 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Holo3-35B-A3B | Ling 2.6 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 14.1% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 59% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 59.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 6.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -65.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 15.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 95.8% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Holo3-35B-A3B and Ling 2.6 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 Holo3-35B-A3B and Ling 2.6 Flash today?
Holo3-35B-A3B: Pricing unavailable Ling 2.6 Flash: Pricing unavailable Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
Related Comparisons
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.