Head-to-head comparison across 3benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Ling 2.6 Flash
36
Qwen3.5 397B
63
Verified leaderboard positions: Ling 2.6 Flash unranked · Qwen3.5 397B #19
Pick Qwen3.5 397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ling 2.6 Flash only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 262K context window.
Coding
+33.3 difference
Knowledge
+6.2 difference
Inst. Following
+35.6 difference
Ling 2.6 Flash
Qwen3.5 397B
$null / $null
$0.6 / $3.6
209.5 t/s
96 t/s
1.07s
2.44s
262K
128K
Pick Qwen3.5 397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Ling 2.6 Flash only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 262K context window.
Qwen3.5 397B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 63 to 36. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.5 397B's sharpest advantage is in instruction following, where it averages 92.6 against 57. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 59% to 88.4%.
Ling 2.6 Flash gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 128K for Qwen3.5 397B.
Qwen3.5 397B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 63 to 36. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 59% and 88.4%.
Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.2 versus 59. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 60.3 versus 27. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench Hard is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 92.6 versus 57. Inside this category, AA-IFBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.