Apertus 8B Instruct vs Ring-flash-2.0
Wins 0 of 5 areas
—
Wins 5 of 5 areas
Coding · Reasoning · Facts · Long documents · Following instructions
Ring-flash-2.0 is the stronger all-rounder.Apertus 8B Instruct is cheaper.
Scores updated · 13 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
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up02Ring-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
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.
Apertus 8B Instruct costs 58% 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+46.9points ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+20.9points ahead
- Code for real scientific research problemsSciCode+12.7points ahead
Where Apertus 8B Instruct pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
Every test, side by side
All 13 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 12.74.116.8+12.7
- Terminal-Bench HardRing-flash-2.0 by 7.607.6+7.6
ReasoningRing-flash-2.0
- GPQA DiamondRing-flash-2.0 by 46.925.672.5+46.9
- Humanity's Last ExamRing-flash-2.0 by 4.659.6+4.6
- CritPttie00.3tie
FactsRing-flash-2.0
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyRing-flash-2.0 by 6.99.716.6+6.9
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationRing-flash-2.0 by 63.99.9+6
Following instructionsRing-flash-2.0
- IFBenchRing-flash-2.0 by 20.922.443.3+20.9
Other results4 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.
- AA-OmniscienceRing-flash-2.0 by 18.6-77.2-58.6+18.6
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Apertus 8B Instruct by 11.411.40+11.4
- AA Agentic IndexApertus 8B Instruct by 3.83.80+3.8
- AA IntelligenceRing-flash-2.0 by 2.44.87.2+2.4
Questions people ask
Which is better, Apertus 8B Instruct or Ring-flash-2.0?
Ring-flash-2.0 wins all five areas where both have results: coding, reasoning, facts, long documents and following instructions. Apertus 8B Instruct wins none, but costs 58% less.
Which is better for coding?
Ring-flash-2.0. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; Apertus 8B Instruct wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Apertus 8B Instruct costs $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Ring-flash-2.0 costs $0.14 and $0.57. That makes Apertus 8B Instruct about 58% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 13 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 4 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.