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

Ling 3.0 Flash vs Qwen: Qwen3.6 27B

Qwen3.6 27B (medium) leads on average score with 6.5 vs 6.4. Ling 3.0 Flash (high) has the lower benchmark cost at $0.000 vs $0.680. Ling 3.0 Flash (high) is faster at 13.32s vs 106.32s, with pass rates of 63.6% vs 59.1%.

Recommended modelQwen3.6 27B (medium)It has the strongest score in this comparison (6.5) and the best overall balance of cost and response time across all 2 models.

Last updated at: 2026-07-25

Metric Ling 3.0 Flash Ling 3.0 Flash high Release: 2026-07-24 Free Available Qwen3.6 27B Qwen3.6 27B medium Release: 2026-04-20
Score 6.4 6.5
Rank #118 #109
Reliability 9.4 10.0
Consistency 8.6 8.0
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 63.6% 59.1%
Flaky tests 4 6
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 0.000 7.319
Total Cost $0.000 $0.680
Input Price $0.000 / 1M $0.290 / 1M
Output Price $0.000 / 1M $2.400 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 132,224 106,167
Output Tokens 92,393 32,889
Reasoning Tokens 211,994 241,303
Response Time (avg) 13.32s 106.32s
Response Time (max) 75.27s 1085.11s
Response Time (total) 292.99s 2339.12s

Hamster playing table tennis

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

#118 Ling 3.0 Flash

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

#109 Qwen3.6 27B

medium
Cost
$0.009
Time
39.6s
Tokens
3,090 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 3.0 Flash 6.7 5.0 66.7% 2 14.85s 8,298 15,602 32,152
Qwen3.6 27B 7.7 10.0 66.7% 0 142.99s 5,051 7,968 43,367

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair