Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Ling 2.6 Flash
Wins 5 of 6 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Long documents
Wins 1 of 6 areas
Following instructions
Claude Haiku 4.5 is the stronger all-rounder.Ling 2.6 Flash is cheaper and better at following instructions.
Scores updated · 17 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.
- CodingWriting and fixing software30Claude Haiku 4.53 of 3 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking20Claude Haiku 4.52 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own20Claude Haiku 4.52 of 2 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up20Claude Haiku 4.52 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Haiku 4.51 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked01Ling 2.6 Flash1 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.
Ling 2.6 Flash costs 99% 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 Haiku 4.5 pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+69.4points ahead
- Reasons across sets of long documentsAA-LCR+43points ahead
- Command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench 2.1+19.9points ahead
Where Ling 2.6 Flash pulls ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+3.1points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 17 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingClaude Haiku 4.5
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Claude Haiku 4.5 by 19.944.224.3+19.9
- SciCodeClaude Haiku 4.5 by 15.142.227.1+15.1
- Terminal-Bench HardClaude Haiku 4.5 by 6.127.321.2+6.1
AgentsClaude Haiku 4.5
- GDPValClaude Haiku 4.5 by 11.811.80+11.8
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingClaude Haiku 4.5 by 6.49.32.9+6.4
ReasoningClaude Haiku 4.5
- GPQA DiamondClaude Haiku 4.5 by 7.967.259.3+7.9
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Haiku 4.5 by 4.110.46.3+4.1
- CritPttie00tie
FactsClaude Haiku 4.5
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude Haiku 4.5 by 69.472.73.3+69.4
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Haiku 4.5 by 2.41815.6+2.4
Following instructionsLing 2.6 Flash
- IFBenchLing 2.6 Flash by 3.154.357.4+3.1
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 Haiku 4.5 by 61.7-4.4-66.1+61.7
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Ling 2.6 Flash by 31.354.786+31.3
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Haiku 4.5 by 18.643.925.3+18.6
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Haiku 4.5 by 810.32.3+8
- AA IntelligenceClaude Haiku 4.5 by 7.216.99.7+7.2
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Ling 2.6 Flash?
Claude Haiku 4.5 wins five of the six areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, facts and long documents. Ling 2.6 Flash wins following instructions, and costs 99% less.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Haiku 4.5. It wins 3 of the 3 coding tests both models report; Ling 2.6 Flash wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Haiku 4.5 costs $1.00 per million input tokens and $5.00 per million output tokens; Ling 2.6 Flash costs $0.01 and $0.03. That makes Ling 2.6 Flash about 99% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 17 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 12 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.