Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Ling-3.0-flash-VL
Wins 4 of 6 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Long documents
Wins 1 of 6 areas
Images and charts
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the stronger all-rounder.Ling-3.0-flash-VL is cheaper and better at images and charts.
Scores updated · 14 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 thinking30Claude Sonnet 4.63 of 3 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own20Claude Sonnet 4.62 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- CodingWriting and fixing software20Claude Sonnet 4.62 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Claude Sonnet 4.61 of 1 test
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video01Ling-3.0-flash-VL1 of 1 test
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
Images and charts and long documents 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-3.0-flash-VL costs 98% 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
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+26.5points ahead
- Very hard expert questions across many subjectsHumanity's Last Exam+11.6points ahead
- Command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench 2.1+6.8points ahead
Where Ling-3.0-flash-VL pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+26.4points ahead
- Harder college exam questions with imagesMMMU-Pro+5.7points 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.
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.6
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Claude Sonnet 4.6 by 6.871.264.4+6.8
- SciCodeClaude Sonnet 4.6 by 5.950.144.2+5.9
AgentsClaude Sonnet 4.6
- GDPValClaude Sonnet 4.6 by 3.536.733.2+3.5
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Claude Sonnet 4.6 by 330+3
- τ-Bench V3 · Bankingtie34.434.4tie
ReasoningClaude Sonnet 4.6
- Humanity's Last ExamClaude Sonnet 4.6 by 11.633.622+11.6
- GPQA DiamondClaude Sonnet 4.6 by 1.387.586.2+1.3
- CritPtClaude Sonnet 4.6 by 1.13.12+1.1
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude Sonnet 4.6 by 26.540.914.3+26.5
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationLing-3.0-flash-VL by 26.451.678+26.4
Images and chartsLing-3.0-flash-VL
- MMMU-ProLing-3.0-flash-VL by 5.773.379+5.7
Other results2 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 16.712.2-4.5+16.7
- AA IntelligenceClaude Sonnet 4.6 by 5.530.124.6+5.5
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Ling-3.0-flash-VL?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins four of the six areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning and long documents. Ling-3.0-flash-VL wins images and charts, and costs 98% less. They are level on facts.
Which is better for coding?
Claude Sonnet 4.6. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; Ling-3.0-flash-VL wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 costs $3.00 per million input tokens and $15.00 per million output tokens; Ling-3.0-flash-VL costs $0.07 and $0.22. That makes Ling-3.0-flash-VL about 98% 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 12 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 2 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.