Navigate
AI BENCHY
Advertise here

inclusionAI: Ling-2.6-flash vs Qwen: Qwen3 Coder Next

Ling-2.6-flash leads on average score with 4.9 vs 4.7. Ling-2.6-flash has the lower benchmark cost at $0.002 vs $0.032. Qwen3 Coder Next (medium) is faster at 9.61s vs 10.68s, with pass rates of 30.3% vs 27.3%.

Recommended modelLing-2.6-flashIt has the best score here (4.9), while costing about 19.8x less than Qwen3 Coder Next (medium).

Last updated at: 2026-07-21

Metric Ling-2.6-flash Ling-2.6-flash none Release: 2026-04-21 Qwen3 Coder Next Qwen3 Coder Next medium Release: 2026-02-03
Score 4.9 4.7
Rank #184 #193
Reliability 10.0 10.0
Consistency 9.3 9.0
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 30.3% 27.3%
Flaky tests 2 3
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 0.024 0.793
Total Cost $0.002 $0.032
Input Price $0.010 / 1M $0.110 / 1M
Output Price $0.030 / 1M $0.800 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 114,375 148,194
Output Tokens 14,903 19,069
Reasoning Tokens 0 0
Response Time (avg) 10.68s 9.61s
Response Time (max) 36.03s 81.80s
Response Time (total) 213.51s 153.69s

Hamster playing table tennis

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

#184 Ling-2.6-flash

none
Ling-2.6-flash is no longer available as a free model. It has transitioned to a paid model. Continue using it here: https://openrouter.ai/inclusionai/ling-2.6-flash
Cost
$0.000
Time
0.0s
Tokens
0 tok

#193 Qwen3 Coder Next

medium
Invalid SVG
Cost
$0.000
Time
300.0s
Tokens
0 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
Ling-2.6-flash 5.3 10.0 33.3% 0 11.21s 813 381 0
Qwen3 Coder Next 3.7 7.2 22.2% 1 924ms 7,185 336 0

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair