Model comparison
Ling 2.6 Flash vs Qwen3.6-27B
Head-to-head evidence from 16 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Ling 2.6 Flash #154 (Estimated); Qwen3.6-27B #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Ling 2.6 Flash and Qwen3.6-27B share 16 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Ling 2.6 Flash; 38 to Qwen3.6-27B.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 16
- Ling 2.6 Flash only
- 2
- Qwen3.6-27B only
- 38
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Qwen3.6-27B 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 16 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Qwen3.6-27B is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 53.82 to 43.87. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.6-27B's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 77.5 against 27. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 59% to 87.8%. 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.
Qwen3.6-27B 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.
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 | Qwen3.6-27B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Ling 2.6 Flash27.0 | Margin→ 50.5 | Qwen3.6-27B77.5 |
| Knowledge | Ling 2.6 Flash59.0 | Margin← 5.7 | Qwen3.6-27B53.3 |
| Agentic | Ling 2.6 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B59.3 |
| Math | Ling 2.6 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B89.2 |
| Multimodal | Ling 2.6 FlashNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B76.7 |
| Inst. Following | Ling 2.6 Flash57.0 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27BNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 59%B 87.8%Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 28.8GPQA: Ling 2.6 Flash scored 59%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 87.8%. Qwen3.6-27B 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 | Qwen3.6-27B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Ling 2.6 FlashNot available | Qwen3.6-27B$0 input / $0 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Ling 2.6 Flash209.5 tok/s | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Ling 2.6 Flash1.07 s | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Ling 2.6 Flash262K | Qwen3.6-27B262K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Ling 2.6 Flash | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 86% | 94.2% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 2.2% | 32.0% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| GDPval-AASource | 545 | 1140 | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | 2.3% | 27.0% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.3% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 72.4% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 53.4% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1487 | Not comparable |
| AndroidWorldSource | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 54.84% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.6-27B wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Ling 2.6 Flash | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SciCodeSource | 27% | — | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | 25.3% | 53.7% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 27.1% | 39.8% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 77.2% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 71.3% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 53.5% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.3% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 83.9% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 36.2% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeLing 2.6 Flash wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Ling 2.6 Flash | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 14.1% | 37.0% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| GPQASource | 59% | 87.8% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 59.3% | 84.2% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 6.2% | 21.6% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -65.7% | -19.8% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 15.4% | 19.2% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 95.8% | 48.3% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 93.5% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 66% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 91.4% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 24% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multimodal16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Ling 2.6 Flash | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMUSource | — | 82.9% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 75.8% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 84.1% | Not comparable |
| DynaMathSource | — | 85.6% | Not comparable |
| MStarSource | — | 81.4% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 56.1% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 78.4% | Not comparable |
| CC-OCRSource | — | 81.2% | Not comparable |
| CountBenchSource | — | 97.8% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 92.5% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 62.5% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 87.7% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.4% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 94.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 74.6% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Ling 2.6 Flash or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 53.82 to 43.87. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 59% and 87.8%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Ling 2.6 Flash or Qwen3.6-27B?
Ling 2.6 Flash has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 59 versus 53.3. 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 Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 27. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
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.