Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) vs Ling 2.6 Flash

Claude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback) vs Ling 2.6 Flash. A reliable intelligence-versus-cost verdict requires both models' intelligence scores and benchmark-run costs. Missing data is not a performance verdict.

AnthropicClaude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback)On the frontier
Intelligence
53.60
Total cost
$2172
InclusionAILing 2.6 FlashNot ranked · benchmark data missing
Intelligence
9.70
Total cost
-
Verdict

Comparison incomplete

A reliable intelligence-versus-cost verdict requires both models' intelligence scores and benchmark-run costs. Missing data is not a performance verdict.

MetricClaude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback)Ling 2.6 FlashDifference
Intelligence (higher is better)53.69.7−81.9% Ling 2.6 Flash is 81.9% less intelligent
Total AA cost (lower is better)$2,172.43Not reported— not comparable
End-to-end time (lower is better)33.58sNot reported— not comparable
Price per 1M tokens (in / out)$4.00 / $20.0—
Input modalitiesText, ImageText
Open this matchup in the interactive pickerClaude Opus 5.5 (High, Default Fallback): what beats itLing 2.6 Flash: what beats it
Matchup

Compare something else

Agents: Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-5-high/ling-2-6-flash · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-opus-5-5-high/ling-2-6-flash?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill