Claude 3.7 Sonnet vs ling-2-6-1t
Wins 3 of 6 areas
Reasoning · Facts · Long documents
Wins 1 of 6 areas
Following instructions
Claude 3.7 Sonnet wins more areas, narrowly.ling-2-6-1t is cheaper and better at following instructions.
Scores updated · 15 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.
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking20Claude 3.7 Sonnet2 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up20Claude 3.7 Sonnet2 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude 3.7 Sonnet1 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked01ling-2-6-1t1 of 1 test
- CodingWriting and fixing software11Even1 each
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own00Even0 each · 1 tie
Agents, 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-2-6-1t costs 84% 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 Claude 3.7 Sonnet pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+52.8points ahead
- Reasons across sets of long documentsAA-LCR+10points ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+6.1points ahead
Where ling-2-6-1t pulls ahead
- Hard command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench Hard+9.9points ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+8.6points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 15 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingEven
- Terminal-Bench Hardling-2-6-1t by 9.921.231.1+9.9
- SciCodeClaude 3.7 Sonnet by 3.340.337+3.3
ReasoningClaude 3.7 Sonnet
- GPQA DiamondClaude 3.7 Sonnet by 277.275.2+2
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude 3.7 Sonnet by 19.78.7+1
- CritPttie0.90.3tie
FactsClaude 3.7 Sonnet
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude 3.7 Sonnet by 52.8607.2+52.8
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude 3.7 Sonnet by 6.12821.9+6.1
Following instructionsling-2-6-1t
- IFBenchling-2-6-1t by 8.648.356.9+8.6
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.
- AA-OmniscienceClaude 3.7 Sonnet by 49.9-0.7-50.6+49.9
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)ling-2-6-1t by 35.154.789.8+35.1
- AA Agentic Indexling-2-6-1t by 11.23748.2+11.2
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude 3.7 Sonnet by 3.336.433.1+3.3
- AA Intelligencetie17.717tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude 3.7 Sonnet or ling-2-6-1t?
Claude 3.7 Sonnet wins three of the six areas where both have results: reasoning, facts and long documents. ling-2-6-1t wins following instructions, and costs 84% less. They are level on coding and agents.
Which is better for coding?
Neither. They win 1 coding test each of the 2 both models report.
Which is cheaper?
Claude 3.7 Sonnet costs $3.00 per million input tokens and $15.00 per million output tokens; ling-2-6-1t costs $0.30 and $2.50. That makes ling-2-6-1t about 84% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 15 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 10 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.