Claude 3.7 Sonnet vs Ling-flash-2.0
Wins 6 of 6 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 0 of 6 areas
—
Claude 3.7 Sonnet is the stronger all-rounder.Ling-flash-2.0 is cheaper.
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
- CodingWriting and fixing software20Claude 3.7 Sonnet2 of 2 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up20Claude 3.7 Sonnet2 of 2 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own10Claude 3.7 Sonnet1 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude 3.7 Sonnet1 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10Claude 3.7 Sonnet1 of 1 test
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-flash-2.0 costs 96% 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+49.5points ahead
- Reasons across sets of long documentsAA-LCR+34points ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+13.9points ahead
Where Ling-flash-2.0 pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
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.
CodingClaude 3.7 Sonnet
- SciCodeClaude 3.7 Sonnet by 11.440.328.9+11.4
- Terminal-Bench HardClaude 3.7 Sonnet by 10.621.210.6+10.6
ReasoningClaude 3.7 Sonnet
- GPQA DiamondClaude 3.7 Sonnet by 11.577.265.7+11.5
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude 3.7 Sonnet by 3.59.76.2+3.5
- CritPttie0.90tie
FactsClaude 3.7 Sonnet
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude 3.7 Sonnet by 49.56010.5+49.5
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude 3.7 Sonnet by 13.92814.1+13.9
Following instructionsClaude 3.7 Sonnet
- IFBenchClaude 3.7 Sonnet by 13.948.334.4+13.9
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 62-0.7-62.7+62
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Claude 3.7 Sonnet by 33.954.720.8+33.9
- AA Agentic IndexClaude 3.7 Sonnet by 28.7378.3+28.7
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude 3.7 Sonnet by 19.736.416.7+19.7
- AA IntelligenceClaude 3.7 Sonnet by 9.917.77.8+9.9
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude 3.7 Sonnet or Ling-flash-2.0?
Claude 3.7 Sonnet wins all six areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, facts, long documents and following instructions. Ling-flash-2.0 wins none, but costs 96% less.
Which is better for coding?
Claude 3.7 Sonnet. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; Ling-flash-2.0 wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Claude 3.7 Sonnet costs $3.00 per million input tokens and $15.00 per million output tokens; Ling-flash-2.0 costs $0.14 and $0.57. That makes Ling-flash-2.0 about 96% 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.