Claude 3.7 Sonnet vs Ring-flash-2.0
Wins 5 of 5 areas
Coding · Reasoning · Facts · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 0 of 5 areas
—
Claude 3.7 Sonnet is the stronger all-rounder.Ring-flash-2.0 is cheaper.
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.
- CodingWriting and fixing software20Claude 3.7 Sonnet2 of 2 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up20Claude 3.7 Sonnet2 of 2 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking10Claude 3.7 Sonnet1 of 3 tests · 2 ties
- 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
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 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+50.1points ahead
- Reasons across sets of long documentsAA-LCR+30.7points ahead
- Code for real scientific research problemsSciCode+23.5points ahead
Where Ring-flash-2.0 pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
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.
CodingClaude 3.7 Sonnet
- SciCodeClaude 3.7 Sonnet by 23.540.316.8+23.5
- Terminal-Bench HardClaude 3.7 Sonnet by 13.621.27.6+13.6
ReasoningClaude 3.7 Sonnet
- GPQA DiamondClaude 3.7 Sonnet by 4.777.272.5+4.7
- CritPttie0.90.3tie
- Humanity's Last Examtie9.79.6tie
FactsClaude 3.7 Sonnet
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude 3.7 Sonnet by 50.1609.9+50.1
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude 3.7 Sonnet by 11.42816.6+11.4
Long documentsClaude 3.7 Sonnet
- AA-LCRClaude 3.7 Sonnet by 30.751.721+30.7
Following instructionsClaude 3.7 Sonnet
- IFBenchClaude 3.7 Sonnet by 548.343.3+5
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 57.9-0.7-58.6+57.9
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Claude 3.7 Sonnet by 54.754.70+54.7
- AA Agentic IndexClaude 3.7 Sonnet by 37370+37
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude 3.7 Sonnet by 25.836.410.6+25.8
- AA IntelligenceClaude 3.7 Sonnet by 10.517.77.2+10.5
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude 3.7 Sonnet or Ring-flash-2.0?
Claude 3.7 Sonnet wins all five areas where both have results: coding, reasoning, facts, long documents and following instructions. Ring-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; Ring-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; Ring-flash-2.0 costs $0.14 and $0.57. That makes Ring-flash-2.0 about 96% 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.