Skip to main content

Model comparison

Ling 2.6 Flash vs Llama 3.1 405B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 11 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

InclusionAI
43.87/100
Margin
7.8pts
winning →
51.71/100
0 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Ling 2.6 Flash #154 (Estimated); Llama 3.1 405B #102 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Ling 2.6 Flash and Llama 3.1 405B share 11 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 7 results are unique to Ling 2.6 Flash; 0 to Llama 3.1 405B.

Updated July 21, 2026
Shared results
11
Ling 2.6 Flash only
7
Llama 3.1 405B only
0
Comparable categories
0 / 8

Benchmark data for Ling 2.6 Flash and Llama 3.1 405B is coming soon on BenchLM.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 11 shared benchmark results across 5 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 128K for Llama 3.1 405B.

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 scores and score margins for Ling 2.6 Flash and Llama 3.1 405B
CategoryLing 2.6 FlashΔLlama 3.1 405B
CodingLing 2.6 Flash27.0MarginNo overlapLlama 3.1 405BNot measured
KnowledgeLing 2.6 Flash59.0MarginNo overlapLlama 3.1 405BNot measured
Inst. FollowingLing 2.6 Flash57.0MarginNo overlapLlama 3.1 405BNot measured

Operational comparison

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

MetricLing 2.6 FlashLlama 3.1 405BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensLing 2.6 FlashNot availableLlama 3.1 405B$0 input / $0 outputA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondLing 2.6 Flash209.5 tok/sLlama 3.1 405B29 tok/sLing 2.6 Flash has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenLing 2.6 Flash1.07 sLlama 3.1 405B2.19 sLing 2.6 Flash reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensLing 2.6 Flash262KLlama 3.1 405B128KLing 2.6 Flash lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkLing 2.6 FlashLlama 3.1 405BResult
τ²-bench resultsSource 86%19%Ling 2.6 Flash leads
GDPval-AASource 2.2%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 545Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 2.3%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkLing 2.6 FlashLlama 3.1 405BResult
SciCodeSource 27%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 25.3%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 27.1%29.9%Llama 3.1 405B leads
Reasoning
BenchmarkLing 2.6 FlashLlama 3.1 405BResult
AA-LCRSource 25.0%24.3%Ling 2.6 Flash leads
CritPtSource 0.0%0.0%Tie
Knowledge
BenchmarkLing 2.6 FlashLlama 3.1 405BResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 14.1%8.5%Ling 2.6 Flash leads
GPQASource 59%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 59.3%51.5%Ling 2.6 Flash leads
AA-HLESource 6.2%4.2%Ling 2.6 Flash leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -65.7%-17.3%Llama 3.1 405B leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 15.4%22.3%Llama 3.1 405B leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 95.8%51.0%Llama 3.1 405B leads
Inst. Following
BenchmarkLing 2.6 FlashLlama 3.1 405BResult
IFBenchSource 57%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 57.4%39.0%Ling 2.6 Flash leads
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Can I compare Ling 2.6 Flash and Llama 3.1 405B 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 Ling 2.6 Flash and Llama 3.1 405B today?

Ling 2.6 Flash: Pricing unavailable Llama 3.1 405B: $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 21, 2026

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.