Claude 3 Haiku vs Ling-mini-2.0
Wins 4 of 6 areas
Coding · Facts · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 1 of 6 areas
Reasoning
Claude 3 Haiku is the stronger all-rounder.Ling-mini-2.0 is better at reasoning.
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.
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up20Claude 3 Haiku2 of 2 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software10Claude 3 Haiku1 of 2 tests · 1 tie
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude 3 Haiku1 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10Claude 3 Haiku1 of 1 test
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking02Ling-mini-2.02 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- 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.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Claude 3 Haiku pulls ahead
- Reasons across sets of long documentsAA-LCR+21.7points ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+15.4points ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+12.5points ahead
Where Ling-mini-2.0 pulls ahead
- Graduate-level biology, physics and chemistry questionsGPQA Diamond+18.8points ahead
- Very hard expert questions across many subjectsHumanity's Last Exam+1points 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.
CodingClaude 3 Haiku
- SciCodeClaude 3 Haiku by 5.118.613.5+5.1
- Terminal-Bench Hardtie0.80.8tie
ReasoningLing-mini-2.0
- GPQA DiamondLing-mini-2.0 by 18.837.456.2+18.8
- Humanity's Last ExamLing-mini-2.0 by 14.15.1+1
- CritPttie00tie
FactsClaude 3 Haiku
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude 3 Haiku by 15.419.54.1+15.4
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude 3 Haiku by 8.717.68.9+8.7
Following instructionsClaude 3 Haiku
- IFBenchClaude 3 Haiku by 12.536.123.6+12.5
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 Haiku by 29.9-48.6-78.5+29.9
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Claude 3 Haiku by 7.921.113.2+7.9
- AA Agentic IndexClaude 3 Haiku by 2.674.4+2.6
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude 3 Haiku by 1.76.75+1.7
- AA Intelligencetie5.65.5tie
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude 3 Haiku or Ling-mini-2.0?
Claude 3 Haiku wins four of the six areas where both have results: coding, facts, long documents and following instructions. Ling-mini-2.0 wins reasoning. They are level on agents.
Which is better for coding?
Claude 3 Haiku. It wins 1 of the 2 coding tests both models report; Ling-mini-2.0 wins none, and 1 is a tie.
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.