Apertus 70B Instruct vs Ring-flash-2.0
Wins 0 of 5 areas
—
Wins 4 of 5 areas
Coding · Reasoning · Long documents · Following instructions
Ring-flash-2.0 is the stronger all-rounder.
Scores updated · 14 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the five areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking02Ring-flash-2.02 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- CodingWriting and fixing software02Ring-flash-2.02 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts01Ring-flash-2.01 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked01Ring-flash-2.01 of 1 test
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
Long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
Ring-flash-2.0 costs 81% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Ring-flash-2.0 pulls ahead
- Graduate-level biology, physics and chemistry questionsGPQA Diamond+45.3points ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+17.4points ahead
- Code for real scientific research problemsSciCode+11.1points ahead
Where Apertus 70B Instruct pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+7.3points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 14 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingRing-flash-2.0
- SciCodeRing-flash-2.0 by 11.15.716.8+11.1
- Terminal-Bench HardRing-flash-2.0 by 7.607.6+7.6
ReasoningRing-flash-2.0
- GPQA DiamondRing-flash-2.0 by 45.327.272.5+45.3
- Humanity's Last ExamRing-flash-2.0 by 4.15.59.6+4.1
- CritPttie00.3tie
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationApertus 70B Instruct by 7.317.29.9+7.3
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyRing-flash-2.0 by 511.616.6+5
Following instructionsRing-flash-2.0
- IFBenchRing-flash-2.0 by 17.425.943.3+17.4
Other results5 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Apertus 70B Instruct by 12.912.90+12.9
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexRing-flash-2.0 by 8.71.910.6+8.7
- AA Agentic IndexApertus 70B Instruct by 4.34.30+4.3
- AA-OmniscienceRing-flash-2.0 by 2.9-61.5-58.6+2.9
- AA IntelligenceRing-flash-2.0 by 2.15.17.2+2.1
Questions people ask
Which is better, Apertus 70B Instruct or Ring-flash-2.0?
Ring-flash-2.0 wins four of the five areas where both have results: coding, reasoning, long documents and following instructions. Apertus 70B Instruct wins none. They are level on facts.
Which is better for coding?
Ring-flash-2.0. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; Apertus 70B Instruct wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Apertus 70B Instruct costs $0.82 per million input tokens and $2.92 per million output tokens; Ring-flash-2.0 costs $0.14 and $0.57. That makes Ring-flash-2.0 about 81% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 14 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 9 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 5 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.