Navigate
AI BENCHY
AD
Track all your projects in one dashboard. Get 📊stats, 🔥heatmaps and 👀recordings in one self-hosted dashboard.
uxwizz.com

Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 vs Ling 3.0 Flash

Ling 3.0 Flash (high) leads on average score with 6.4 vs 6.3. Ling 3.0 Flash (high) has the lower benchmark cost at $0.000 vs $0.548. Claude Sonnet 5 is faster at 6.04s vs 13.32s, with pass rates of 45.5% vs 63.6%.

Recommended modelClaude Sonnet 5Its score stays close to the best score here (6.3 vs 6.4), while responding about 2.2x faster than Ling 3.0 Flash (high).

Last updated at: 2026-07-24

Metric Claude Sonnet 5 Claude Sonnet 5 none Release: 2026-06-30 Ling 3.0 Flash Ling 3.0 Flash high Release: 2026-07-24 Free Available
Score 6.3 6.4
Rank #119 #114
Reliability 10.0 9.4
Consistency 8.7 8.6
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 45.5% 63.6%
Flaky tests 4 4
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 6.840 0.000
Total Cost $0.548 $0.000
Input Price $2.000 / 1M $0.000 / 1M
Output Price $10.000 / 1M $0.000 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 161,035 132,224
Output Tokens 22,511 92,393
Reasoning Tokens 0 211,994
Response Time (avg) 6.04s 13.32s
Response Time (max) 33.39s 75.27s
Response Time (total) 132.85s 292.99s

Hamster playing table tennis

Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.

#119 Claude Sonnet 5

none
Cost
$0.061
Time
53.7s
Tokens
6,172 tok

#114 Ling 3.0 Flash

high
Cost
$0.000
Time
30.7s
Tokens
10,576 tok

Top Models by Score

Score vs Total Cost

Response Time (avg)

Score vs Response Time (avg)

Total Output Tokens

Score vs Total Output Tokens

Category Breakdown

Coding Score Consistency Attempt pass rate Flaky tests Tests Correct Response Time (avg) Input Tokens Output Tokens Reasoning Tokens
Claude Sonnet 5 4.6 7.9 22.2% 1 3.67s 10,590 1,864 0
Ling 3.0 Flash 6.7 5.0 66.7% 2 14.85s 8,298 15,602 32,152

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair