Model comparison
Ling 2.6 Flash vs Qwen3.5 Flash
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Ling 2.6 Flash #154 (Estimated); Qwen3.5 Flash #134 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Ling 2.6 Flash and Qwen3.5 Flash share 0 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 18 results are unique to Ling 2.6 Flash; 2 to Qwen3.5 Flash.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- Ling 2.6 Flash only
- 18
- Qwen3.5 Flash only
- 2
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Ling 2.6 Flash and Qwen3.5 Flash is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 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.
Qwen3.5 Flash has the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Ling 2.6 Flash.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Ling 2.6 Flash | Qwen3.5 Flash | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Ling 2.6 FlashNot available | Qwen3.5 Flash$0.1 input / $0.4 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Ling 2.6 Flash209.5 tok/s | Qwen3.5 FlashNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Ling 2.6 Flash1.07 s | Qwen3.5 FlashNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Ling 2.6 Flash262K | Qwen3.5 Flash1M | Qwen3.5 Flash lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic4 benchmarks
Coding3 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Ling 2.6 Flash | Qwen3.5 Flash | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 14.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 59% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
Math2 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Ling 2.6 Flash and Qwen3.5 Flash 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 Qwen3.5 Flash today?
Ling 2.6 Flash: Pricing unavailable Qwen3.5 Flash: $0.10 input / $0.40 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
Related Comparisons
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.