Skip to main content

Ling 2.6 Flash vs Qwen3.5 397B

Head-to-head comparison across 3benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.

Ling 2.6 Flash

44

VS

Qwen3.5 397B

66

0 categoriesvs3 categories

Verified leaderboard positions: Ling 2.6 Flash unranked · Qwen3.5 397B #11

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.

Category Radar

Head-to-Head by Category

Category Breakdown

Coding

Qwen3.5 397B
27vs60.3

+33.3 difference

Knowledge

Qwen3.5 397B
59vs65.2

+6.2 difference

Inst. Following

Qwen3.5 397B
57vs92.6

+35.6 difference

Operational Comparison

Ling 2.6 Flash

Qwen3.5 397B

Price (per 1M tokens)

$0.1 / $0.3

$0 / $0

Speed

209.5 t/s

96 t/s

Latency (TTFT)

1.07s

2.44s

Context Window

262K

128K

Quick Verdict

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, 66 to 44. 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 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.10 input / $0.30 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.5 397B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Ling 2.6 Flash gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 128K for Qwen3.5 397B.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Ling 2.6 Flash or Qwen3.5 397B?

Qwen3.5 397B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 66 to 44. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 59% and 88.4%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Ling 2.6 Flash or Qwen3.5 397B?

Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.2 versus 59. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Ling 2.6 Flash or Qwen3.5 397B?

Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 60.3 versus 27. Ling 2.6 Flash stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for instruction following, Ling 2.6 Flash or Qwen3.5 397B?

Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 92.6 versus 57. Ling 2.6 Flash stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: April 22, 2026

The AI models change fast. We track them for you.

For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.