Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Ling-flash-2.0
Wins 6 of 6 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 0 of 6 areas
—
Claude Haiku 4.5 is the stronger all-rounder.Ling-flash-2.0 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 thinking20Claude Haiku 4.52 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- CodingWriting and fixing software20Claude Haiku 4.52 of 2 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up20Claude Haiku 4.52 of 2 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own10Claude Haiku 4.51 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Haiku 4.51 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10Claude Haiku 4.51 of 1 test
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.
Ling-flash-2.0 costs 88% 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+62.2points ahead
- Reasons across sets of long documentsAA-LCR+56.6points ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+19.9points ahead
Where Ling-flash-2.0 pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
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 Haiku 4.5
- Terminal-Bench HardClaude Haiku 4.5 by 16.727.310.6+16.7
- SciCodeClaude Haiku 4.5 by 13.342.228.9+13.3
ReasoningClaude Haiku 4.5
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Haiku 4.5 by 4.210.46.2+4.2
- GPQA DiamondClaude Haiku 4.5 by 1.567.265.7+1.5
- CritPttie00tie
FactsClaude Haiku 4.5
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude Haiku 4.5 by 62.272.710.5+62.2
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Haiku 4.5 by 3.91814.1+3.9
Long documentsClaude Haiku 4.5
- AA-LCRClaude Haiku 4.5 by 56.674.317.7+56.6
Following instructionsClaude Haiku 4.5
- IFBenchClaude Haiku 4.5 by 19.954.334.4+19.9
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 58.3-4.4-62.7+58.3
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Claude Haiku 4.5 by 33.954.720.8+33.9
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Haiku 4.5 by 27.243.916.7+27.2
- AA IntelligenceClaude Haiku 4.5 by 9.116.97.8+9.1
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Haiku 4.5 by 210.38.3+2
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Ling-flash-2.0?
Claude Haiku 4.5 wins all six areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, facts, long documents and following instructions. Ling-flash-2.0 wins none, but costs 88% less.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Haiku 4.5. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; Ling-flash-2.0 wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Haiku 4.5 costs $1.00 per million input tokens and $5.00 per million output tokens; Ling-flash-2.0 costs $0.14 and $0.57. That makes Ling-flash-2.0 about 88% 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.