Model comparison
Ling 2.6 Flash vs Nemotron 3 Ultra
Head-to-head evidence from 19 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Ling 2.6 Flash unranked; Nemotron 3 Ultra #24
BenchAlign evidence: Ling 2.6 Flash estimated; Nemotron 3 Ultra not scored. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Ling 2.6 Flash and Nemotron 3 Ultra share 19 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Ling 2.6 Flash; 20 to Nemotron 3 Ultra.
Updated July 16, 2026- Shared results
- 19
- Ling 2.6 Flash only
- 0
- Nemotron 3 Ultra only
- 20
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Nemotron 3 Ultra if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ling 2.6 Flash only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 19 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Nemotron 3 Ultra is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 60 to 36. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Nemotron 3 Ultra's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 58.3 against 27. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 59% to 87%. Ling 2.6 Flash does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Nemotron 3 Ultra is the reasoning model in the pair, while Ling 2.6 Flash is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Nemotron 3 Ultra gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Ling 2.6 Flash.
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 | Ling 2.6 Flash | Δ | Nemotron 3 Ultra |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Ling 2.6 Flash27.0 | Margin→ 31.3 | Nemotron 3 Ultra58.3 |
| Inst. Following | Ling 2.6 Flash57.0 | Margin→ 24.7 | Nemotron 3 Ultra81.7 |
| Knowledge | Ling 2.6 Flash59.0 | Margin← 4.8 | Nemotron 3 Ultra54.2 |
| Agentic | Ling 2.6 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Ultra51.3 |
| Reasoning | Ling 2.6 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Ultra61.9 |
| Multilingual | Ling 2.6 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Nemotron 3 Ultra83.0 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 59%B 87%Winner: Nemotron 3 UltraΔ 28GPQA: Ling 2.6 Flash scored 59%; Nemotron 3 Ultra scored 87%. Nemotron 3 Ultra wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
IFBench
Inst. FollowingA 57%B 81.7%Winner: Nemotron 3 UltraΔ 24.7IFBench: Ling 2.6 Flash scored 57%; Nemotron 3 Ultra scored 81.7%. Nemotron 3 Ultra wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SciCode
CodingA 27%B 44.6%Winner: Nemotron 3 UltraΔ 17.6SciCode: Ling 2.6 Flash scored 27%; Nemotron 3 Ultra scored 44.6%. Nemotron 3 Ultra wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Ling 2.6 Flash | Nemotron 3 Ultra | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Ling 2.6 FlashNot available | Nemotron 3 Ultra$0 input / $0 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Ling 2.6 Flash209.5 tok/s | Nemotron 3 UltraNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Ling 2.6 Flash1.07 s | Nemotron 3 UltraNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Ling 2.6 Flash262K | Nemotron 3 Ultra1M | Nemotron 3 Ultra lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Ling 2.6 Flash | Nemotron 3 Ultra | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 86% | 83.3% | Ling 2.6 Flash leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 2.2% | 33.2% | Nemotron 3 Ultra leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 545 | 1164 | Nemotron 3 Ultra leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 2.3% | 27.4% | Nemotron 3 Ultra leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 56.4% | Not comparable |
| PinchBenchSource | — | 90.0% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 44.4% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 70.9% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/ toolsSource | — | 37.4% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 870 | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 28.9% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 3.3% | Not comparable |
CodingNemotron 3 Ultra wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Ling 2.6 Flash | Nemotron 3 Ultra | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SciCodeSource | 27% | 44.6% | Nemotron 3 Ultra leads |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 25.3% | 49.3% | Nemotron 3 Ultra leads |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 21.2% | 36.4% | Nemotron 3 Ultra leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 27.1% | 39.9% | Nemotron 3 Ultra leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 71.9% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 67.7% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 89.0% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 56.4% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
KnowledgeLing 2.6 Flash wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Ling 2.6 Flash | Nemotron 3 Ultra | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 14.1% | 37.8% | Nemotron 3 Ultra leads |
| GPQASource | 59% | 87% | Nemotron 3 Ultra leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 59.3% | 86.7% | Nemotron 3 Ultra leads |
| AA-HLESource | 6.2% | 26.6% | Nemotron 3 Ultra leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -65.7% | -0.8% | Nemotron 3 Ultra leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 15.4% | 21.6% | Nemotron 3 Ultra leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 95.8% | 28.5% | Nemotron 3 Ultra leads |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 87.0% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 26.7% | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | — | 26.7% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 86.8% | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 83.3% | Not comparable |
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Ling 2.6 Flash | Nemotron 3 Ultra | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProXSource | — | 83% | Not comparable |
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Ling 2.6 Flash | Nemotron 3 Ultra | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1132 | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Ling 2.6 Flash or Nemotron 3 Ultra?
Nemotron 3 Ultra is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 60 to 36. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 59% and 87%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Ling 2.6 Flash or Nemotron 3 Ultra?
Ling 2.6 Flash has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 59 versus 54.2. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Ling 2.6 Flash or Nemotron 3 Ultra?
Nemotron 3 Ultra has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 58.3 versus 27. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for instruction following, Ling 2.6 Flash or Nemotron 3 Ultra?
Nemotron 3 Ultra has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 81.7 versus 57. Inside this category, IFBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.