GPT-5.6 Sol vs Ling-3.1-flash
Wins 4 of 5 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Long documents
Wins 0 of 5 areas
—
GPT-5.6 Sol is the stronger all-rounder.Ling-3.1-flash is cheaper.
Scores updated · 13 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.
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking20GPT-5.6 Sol2 of 2 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own10GPT-5.6 Sol1 of 2 tests · 1 tie
- CodingWriting and fixing software10GPT-5.6 Sol1 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10GPT-5.6 Sol1 of 1 test
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
Coding 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-3.1-flash costs 95% 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 GPT-5.6 Sol pulls ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+30.3points ahead
- Research-level physics problemsCritPt+14.3points ahead
- Very hard expert questions across many subjectsHumanity's Last Exam+10.1points ahead
Where Ling-3.1-flash pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+54.3points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 13 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
AgentsGPT-5.6 Sol
- Terminal-Bench 4.0GPT-5.6 Sol by 6.639.933.3+6.6
- GDPValtie55.656.1tie
ReasoningGPT-5.6 Sol
- CritPtGPT-5.6 Sol by 14.332.318+14.3
- Humanity's Last ExamGPT-5.6 Sol by 10.149.539.4+10.1
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationLing-3.1-flash by 54.37.862.1+54.3
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyGPT-5.6 Sol by 30.359.429.1+30.3
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-OmniscienceGPT-5.6 Sol by 19.8222.2+19.8
- AA IntelligenceGPT-5.6 Sol by 5.94741.1+5.9
- HealthBench ProfessionalLing-3.1-flash by 4.960.565.3+4.9
- CyberGymLing-3.1-flash by 3.484.587.9+3.4
- Terminal-Bench 4.0Ling-3.1-flash by 3.137.340.4+3.1
Questions people ask
Which is better, GPT-5.6 Sol or Ling-3.1-flash?
GPT-5.6 Sol wins four of the five areas where both have results: coding, agents, reasoning and long documents. Ling-3.1-flash wins none, but costs 95% less. They are level on facts.
Which is better for coding?
GPT-5.6 Sol. It wins the one coding test both models report.
Which is cheaper?
GPT-5.6 Sol costs $4.00 per million input tokens and $20.00 per million output tokens; Ling-3.1-flash costs $0.30 and $0.90. That makes Ling-3.1-flash about 95% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 13 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 8 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.