Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Ling 2.6 Flash
Wins 1 of 6 areas
Agents
Wins 4 of 6 areas
Coding · Reasoning · Long documents · Following instructions
Ling 2.6 Flash is the stronger all-rounder.Claude 3.5 Haiku is better at agents.
Scores updated · 17 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the six 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.
- CodingWriting and fixing software02Ling 2.6 Flash2 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking02Ling 2.6 Flash2 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts01Ling 2.6 Flash1 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked01Ling 2.6 Flash1 of 1 test
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own10Claude 3.5 Haiku1 of 2 tests · 1 tie
- 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.
Ling 2.6 Flash costs 99% 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 Ling 2.6 Flash pulls ahead
- Hard command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench Hard+18.9points ahead
- Graduate-level biology, physics and chemistry questionsGPQA Diamond+18.5points ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+14.6points ahead
Where Claude 3.5 Haiku pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+55.6points ahead
- Customer-service tasks in a simulated bankτ-Bench V3 · Banking+2.9points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 17 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingLing 2.6 Flash
- Terminal-Bench HardLing 2.6 Flash by 18.92.321.2+18.9
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Ling 2.6 Flash by 14.210.124.3+14.2
- SciCodetie27.427.1tie
AgentsClaude 3.5 Haiku
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingClaude 3.5 Haiku by 2.95.82.9+2.9
- GDPValtie00tie
ReasoningLing 2.6 Flash
- GPQA DiamondLing 2.6 Flash by 18.540.859.3+18.5
- Humanity's Last ExamLing 2.6 Flash by 2.73.66.3+2.7
- CritPttie00tie
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude 3.5 Haiku by 55.658.93.3+55.6
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyLing 2.6 Flash by 2.413.215.6+2.4
Following instructionsLing 2.6 Flash
- IFBenchLing 2.6 Flash by 14.642.857.4+14.6
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)Ling 2.6 Flash by 61.424.686+61.4
- AA-OmniscienceClaude 3.5 Haiku by 43.6-22.5-66.1+43.6
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexLing 2.6 Flash by 9.415.925.3+9.4
- AA Intelligencetie8.99.7tie
- AA Agentic Indextie1.92.3tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude 3.5 Haiku or Ling 2.6 Flash?
Ling 2.6 Flash wins four of the six areas where both have results: coding, reasoning, long documents and following instructions. Claude 3.5 Haiku wins agents. They are level on facts.
Which is better for coding?
Ling 2.6 Flash. It wins 2 of the 3 coding tests both models report; Claude 3.5 Haiku wins none, and 1 is a tie.
Which is cheaper?
Claude 3.5 Haiku costs $0.80 per million input tokens and $4.00 per million output tokens; Ling 2.6 Flash costs $0.01 and $0.03. That makes Ling 2.6 Flash about 99% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 17 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 12 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.