Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Ling 2.6 Flash
Wins 5 of 6 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Facts · Long documents
Wins 0 of 6 areas
—
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the stronger all-rounder.Ling 2.6 Flash is cheaper.
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 Sonnet 4.63 of 3 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking30Claude Sonnet 4.63 of 3 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own20Claude Sonnet 4.62 of 2 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up20Claude Sonnet 4.62 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Sonnet 4.61 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked00Even0 each · 1 tie
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 100% 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 Sonnet 4.6 pulls ahead
- Reasons across sets of long documentsAA-LCR+48.7points ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+48.3points ahead
- Command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench 2.1+46.9points ahead
Where Ling 2.6 Flash pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
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 Sonnet 4.6
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Claude Sonnet 4.6 by 46.971.224.3+46.9
- Terminal-Bench HardClaude Sonnet 4.6 by 31.85321.2+31.8
- SciCodeClaude Sonnet 4.6 by 2350.127.1+23
AgentsClaude Sonnet 4.6
- GDPValClaude Sonnet 4.6 by 36.736.70+36.7
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingClaude Sonnet 4.6 by 31.534.42.9+31.5
ReasoningClaude Sonnet 4.6
- GPQA DiamondClaude Sonnet 4.6 by 28.287.559.3+28.2
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Sonnet 4.6 by 27.333.66.3+27.3
- CritPtClaude Sonnet 4.6 by 3.13.10+3.1
FactsClaude Sonnet 4.6
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationClaude Sonnet 4.6 by 48.351.63.3+48.3
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Sonnet 4.6 by 25.340.915.6+25.3
Long documentsClaude Sonnet 4.6
- AA-LCRClaude Sonnet 4.6 by 48.78031.3+48.7
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 Sonnet 4.6 by 78.312.2-66.1+78.3
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude Sonnet 4.6 by 37.76325.3+37.7
- AA Agentic IndexClaude Sonnet 4.6 by 30.833.12.3+30.8
- AA IntelligenceClaude Sonnet 4.6 by 20.430.19.7+20.4
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Ling 2.6 Flash by 10.375.786+10.3
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Ling 2.6 Flash?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins five of the six areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning, facts and long documents. Ling 2.6 Flash wins none, but costs 100% less. They are level on following instructions.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Sonnet 4.6. It wins 3 of the 3 coding tests both models report; Ling 2.6 Flash wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 costs $3.00 per million input tokens and $15.00 per million output tokens; Ling 2.6 Flash costs $0.01 and $0.03. That makes Ling 2.6 Flash about 100% 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.