Summary
Ling 2.6 Flash scores 5.4 on AI BENCHY and ranks #84. It has N/A reliability, a 35.2% pass rate, $0.000 total cost, and 11.33s average response time.
What makes Ling 2.6 Flash unique: Its total benchmark cost is unusually low for its score range. It is notably fast compared with similar models.
Identity note
Elephant Alpha was the stealth version of Ling 2.6 Flash.
Researched on 2026-08-12
5.4
Consistency
9.5
N/A
$0.000
Total Output Tokens
3,338
Total Input Tokens
0
Input Price
$0.000 / 1M
Output Price
$0.000 / 1M
Cache Read Price
N/A
Cache Write Price
N/A
Cache prices apply to input tokens. Reads reuse cached prompts; writes store them and can cost extra. Output tokens use the output price.
Wrong Tests: 12
Attempt pass rate: 35.2%
Benchmark coverage: 52/54 attempts (Target: 3 repeats per test)
Flaky tests
1
Flaky tests had mixed outcomes across runs (at least one pass and one fail).
Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.
Run history
| Tested on | Score | Reliability | Tests Correct | Total Cost | Compare |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-08-14 03:06 Re-test | 4.9 | 9.6 | $0.002 ↑ | Compare | |
| 2026-07-16 23:16 New test added | 4.9 | 10.0 | $0.002 ↑ | Compare | |
| 2026-06-04 14:30 New test added | 5.0 | 10.0 | $0.001 ↑ | Compare | |
| 2026-05-22 00:42 Suite changed | 5.3 | 10.0 | $0.001 | Compare | |
| 2026-05-08 15:30 Suite changed | 5.3 | 10.0 | $0.001 | Compare | |
| 2026-04-22 12:55 First recorded run | 5.4 | N/A | $0.000 | Current run |
Run comparison
| Run | Benchmark coverage | Score | Consistency | Reliability | Tests Correct | Flaky tests | Total Output Tokens | Total Input Tokens | Total Cost | Response Time (avg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-22 12:55 · First recorded run | 52/54 attempts | 5.4 | 9.5 | N/A | 6/18 | 1 | 3,338 | 0 | $0.000 | 11.33s |
| 2026-07-16 23:16 · New test added | 66/66 attempts | 4.9 | 9.3 | 10.0 | 6/22 | 2 | 14,903 | 114,375 | $0.002 | 10.68s |
| Difference | — | +0.5 | +0.2 | 0 | -1 | -11565 | -114375 | -$0.002 | +651ms |
Benchmark coverage differs: 52/54 attempts (Target: 3 repeats per test) versus 66/66 attempts (Target: 3 repeats per test). Totals and repeat-sensitive metrics are not directly comparable.
These two runs used different benchmark suites, so the deltas reflect both model changes and suite changes.
Choose the first model, then click a second model to open a side-by-side page.
| Category | Score | Consistency | Tests Correct |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anti-AI Tricks | 6.5 | 10.0 | |
| Coding | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Combined | 3.0 | 10.0 | |
| Data parsing and extraction | 6.5 | 10.0 | |
| Domain specific | 3.0 | 10.0 | |
| General Intelligence | 4.1 | 10.0 | |
| Instructions following | 9.8 | 10.0 | |
| Puzzle Solving | 2.9 | 7.2 | |
| Tool Calling | 3.0 | 10.0 |