Claude Sonnet 5 vs Ling-2.6-flash
Side-by-side API pricing and Artificial Analysis performance for Claude Sonnet 5 (Anthropic) and Ling-2.6-flash (Inclusionai). Green cells mark the better value in each row.
Prices updated Jul 22, 2026, 1:37 AM UTC · refreshed hourly
| Claude Sonnet 5 Anthropic | Ling-2.6-flash Inclusionai | |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $0.01 |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | $0.03 |
| Blended $/1M (3:1) | $4.00 | $0.015 |
| RAG example (30K in / 2K out) | $0.08 | $0.00036 |
| Quality & speed | ||
| Intelligence Index | 53.4 | 14.1 |
| Coding Index | 71.5 | 25.3 |
| Agentic Index | 46.7 | 2.3 |
| Output speed (tok/s) | 88 | 152 |
| Time to first token | 93.55s | 0.62s |
| Specs | ||
| Context window | 1M | 262K |
| Input modalities | text, image, file | text |
FAQ
Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 5 or Ling-2.6-flash?
Ling-2.6-flash has the lower blended API price at $0.015 per 1M tokens (3:1 input:output mix), versus $4.00 for the other model. Prices are live from OpenRouter and refresh about hourly.
Which is better for RAG workloads?
For a typical RAG request (30K input / 2K output tokens), Ling-2.6-flash costs about $0.00036 per request versus $0.08. Also compare context windows: Claude Sonnet 5 offers 1M and Ling-2.6-flash offers 262K.
Which scores higher on Artificial Analysis benchmarks?
Claude Sonnet 5 leads on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (53.4 vs 14.1). Check coding and agentic indices on this page for workload-specific tradeoffs.