Compare/Ling 2.6 Flash vs Step 3.5 Flash 2603

Ling 2.6 FlashvsStep 3.5 Flash 2603

Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.

InclusionAI

Ling 2.6 Flash

Input
$0.1/M
Output
$0.3/M
Speed
TTFT
StepFun

Step 3.5 Flash 2603

Input
$0.1/M
Output
$0.3/M
Speed
181 tok/s
TTFT
1.86s

Winner by Category

Cheaper
Tie
Faster (tok/s)
Step 3.5 Flash 2603
Lower Latency
Ling 2.6 Flash
Benchmarks (0-7)
Step 3.5 Flash 2603

Pricing Comparison

MetricLing 2.6 FlashStep 3.5 Flash 2603
Input ($/M tokens)$0.1$0.1
Output ($/M tokens)$0.3$0.3
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
Ling 2.6 Flash$0.13
Step 3.5 Flash 2603$0.13

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
Ling 2.6 Flash
Step 3.5 Flash 2603
181 tok/s
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
Ling 2.6 Flash
Step 3.5 Flash 2603
1.86s

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
26.238.5
Coding Index
23.234.6
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
59.3%82.6%
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
6.2%22.6%
SciCode
27.1%38.5%
IFBench
57.4%66.5%
TerminalBench
21.2%32.6%
Ling 2.6 Flash0 wins
7 winsStep 3.5 Flash 2603

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, Ling 2.6 Flash or Step 3.5 Flash 2603?

Both models have similar pricing. Check the detailed breakdown above for input vs output token costs.

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

Step 3.5 Flash 2603 wins 7 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Ling 2.6 Flash. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

Step 3.5 Flash 2603 generates tokens faster at 181 tok/s vs 0 tok/s. Ling 2.6 Flash also has lower time-to-first-token (0.00s vs 1.86s).

When should I use Ling 2.6 Flash vs Step 3.5 Flash 2603?

Choose based on your priorities: both are similarly priced, Step 3.5 Flash 2603 for stronger benchmark performance, and Step 3.5 Flash 2603 for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.