Claude 3 Haiku vs Ring-flash-2.0
Wins 2 of 5 areas
Facts · Long documents
Wins 2 of 5 areas
Reasoning · Following instructions
The two are evenly matched.Claude 3 Haiku is better at facts and long documents; Ring-flash-2.0 at reasoning and following instructions.
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.
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up20Claude 3 Haiku2 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude 3 Haiku1 of 1 test
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking02Ring-flash-2.02 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked01Ring-flash-2.01 of 1 test
- CodingWriting and fixing software11Even1 each
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 53% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The three tests each model wins by the widest margin. Scores are out of 100.
Where Claude 3 Haiku pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+9.6points ahead
- Reasons across sets of long documentsAA-LCR+6.7points ahead
- Code for real scientific research problemsSciCode+1.8points ahead
Where Ring-flash-2.0 pulls ahead
- Graduate-level biology, physics and chemistry questionsGPQA Diamond+35.1points ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+7.2points ahead
- Hard command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench Hard+6.8points ahead
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.
CodingEven
- Terminal-Bench HardRing-flash-2.0 by 6.80.87.6+6.8
- SciCodeClaude 3 Haiku by 1.818.616.8+1.8
ReasoningRing-flash-2.0
- GPQA DiamondRing-flash-2.0 by 35.137.472.5+35.1
- Humanity's Last ExamRing-flash-2.0 by 5.54.19.6+5.5
- CritPttie00.3tie
FactsClaude 3 Haiku
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude 3 Haiku by 9.619.59.9+9.6
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude 3 Haiku by 117.616.6+1
Following instructionsRing-flash-2.0
- IFBenchRing-flash-2.0 by 7.236.143.3+7.2
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)Claude 3 Haiku by 21.121.10+21.1
- AA-OmniscienceClaude 3 Haiku by 10-48.6-58.6+10
- AA Agentic IndexClaude 3 Haiku by 770+7
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexRing-flash-2.0 by 3.96.710.6+3.9
- AA IntelligenceRing-flash-2.0 by 1.65.67.2+1.6
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude 3 Haiku or Ring-flash-2.0?
Claude 3 Haiku and Ring-flash-2.0 each win two of the five areas where both have results. Claude 3 Haiku wins facts and long documents; Ring-flash-2.0 wins reasoning and following instructions. Ring-flash-2.0 costs 53% less. They are level on coding.
Which is better for coding?
Neither. They win 1 coding test each of the 2 both models report.
Which is cheaper?
Claude 3 Haiku costs $0.25 per million input tokens and $1.25 per million output tokens; Ring-flash-2.0 costs $0.14 and $0.57. That makes Ring-flash-2.0 about 53% 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.