Skip to main content

Model comparison

Ling 2.6 Flash vs Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

InclusionAI
43.87/100
No comparison
1 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Ling 2.6 Flash #154 (Estimated); Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Ling 2.6 Flash and Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct share 1 comparable benchmark result. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 17 results are unique to Ling 2.6 Flash; 4 to Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
1
Ling 2.6 Flash only
17
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct only
4
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Ling 2.6 Flash makes more sense if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 262K context window; Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct is the better fit if instruction following is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 2 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 and Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.

Ling 2.6 Flash gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 128K for Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct.

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 Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct
CategoryLing 2.6 FlashΔMellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct
Inst. FollowingLing 2.6 Flash57.0Margin 18.8Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct75.8
KnowledgeLing 2.6 Flash59.0Margin 18.1Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct40.9
CodingLing 2.6 Flash27.0MarginNo overlapMellum2-12B-A2.5B-InstructNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Ling 2.6 FlashB · Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct
  1. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 59%B 40.9%
    Winner: Ling 2.6 FlashΔ 18.1
    GPQA: Ling 2.6 Flash scored 59%; Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct scored 40.9%. Ling 2.6 Flash wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricLing 2.6 FlashMellum2-12B-A2.5B-InstructComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensLing 2.6 FlashNot availableMellum2-12B-A2.5B-InstructNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondLing 2.6 Flash209.5 tok/sMellum2-12B-A2.5B-InstructNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenLing 2.6 Flash1.07 sMellum2-12B-A2.5B-InstructNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensLing 2.6 Flash262KMellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct128KLing 2.6 Flash lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkLing 2.6 FlashMellum2-12B-A2.5B-InstructResult
τ²-bench resultsSource 86%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 2.2%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 545Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 2.3%Not comparable
BFCL v4Source 44.2%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkLing 2.6 FlashMellum2-12B-A2.5B-InstructResult
SciCodeSource 27%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 25.3%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 27.1%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkLing 2.6 FlashMellum2-12B-A2.5B-InstructResult
AA-LCRSource 25.0%Not comparable
CritPtSource 0.0%Not comparable
KnowledgeLing 2.6 Flash wins
BenchmarkLing 2.6 FlashMellum2-12B-A2.5B-InstructResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 14.1%Not comparable
GPQASource 59%40.9%Ling 2.6 Flash leads
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
MMLU-ReduxSource 78.1%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 40.9%Not comparable
Inst. FollowingMellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct wins
BenchmarkLing 2.6 FlashMellum2-12B-A2.5B-InstructResult
IFBenchSource 57%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 57.4%Not comparable
IFEvalSource 75.8%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Ling 2.6 Flash or Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct?

Ling 2.6 Flash and Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Ling 2.6 Flash or Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct?

Ling 2.6 Flash has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 59 versus 40.9. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for instruction following, Ling 2.6 Flash or Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct?

Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Instruct has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 75.8 versus 57. Ling 2.6 Flash stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 23, 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.