Claude 3 Haiku vs ling-2-6-1t
Wins 0 of 6 areas
—
Wins 5 of 6 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Long documents · Following instructions
ling-2-6-1t is the stronger all-rounder.Claude 3 Haiku 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 thinking02ling-2-6-1t2 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- CodingWriting and fixing software02ling-2-6-1t2 of 2 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own01ling-2-6-1t1 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts01ling-2-6-1t1 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked01ling-2-6-1t1 of 1 test
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
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.
Claude 3 Haiku costs 46% 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-2-6-1t pulls ahead
- Graduate-level biology, physics and chemistry questionsGPQA Diamond+37.8points ahead
- Hard command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench Hard+30.3points ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+20.8points ahead
Where Claude 3 Haiku pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+12.3points 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.
Codingling-2-6-1t
- Terminal-Bench Hardling-2-6-1t by 30.30.831.1+30.3
- SciCodeling-2-6-1t by 18.418.637+18.4
Reasoningling-2-6-1t
- GPQA Diamondling-2-6-1t by 37.837.475.2+37.8
- Humanity's Last Examling-2-6-1t by 4.64.18.7+4.6
- CritPttie00.3tie
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude 3 Haiku by 12.319.57.2+12.3
- AA-Omniscience · Accuracyling-2-6-1t by 4.317.621.9+4.3
Following instructionsling-2-6-1t
- IFBenchling-2-6-1t by 20.836.156.9+20.8
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-2-6-1t by 68.721.189.8+68.7
- AA Agentic Indexling-2-6-1t by 41.2748.2+41.2
- Artificial Analysis Coding Indexling-2-6-1t by 26.46.733.1+26.4
- AA Intelligenceling-2-6-1t by 11.45.617+11.4
- AA-OmniscienceClaude 3 Haiku by 2-48.6-50.6+2
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude 3 Haiku or ling-2-6-1t?
ling-2-6-1t wins five of the six areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, long documents and following instructions. Claude 3 Haiku wins none, but costs 46% less. They are level on facts.
Which is better for coding?
ling-2-6-1t. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; Claude 3 Haiku wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Claude 3 Haiku costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $1.25 per million output tokens; ling-2-6-1t costs $0.30 and $2.50. That makes Claude 3 Haiku about 46% 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.