Claude Opus 4.6 vs Ring Flash 2.0
Side-by-side benchmark comparison across coding, math, reasoning, speed, and pricing.
Ring Flash 2.0 by InclusionAI wins on 2 of 3 benchmarks against Claude Opus 4.6 by Anthropic, which leads on 1. This head-to-head comparison covers coding, math, reasoning, speed, and pricing metrics from the AI Value Index.
Category-by-Category Breakdown
Context: In context, Claude Opus 4.6 scores 200K on Context Length compared to Ring Flash 2.0's 128K.
Speed Comparison
Claude Opus 4.6 generates output at 68 tok/s compared to Ring Flash 2.0's 83 tok/s, and the time to first token is 1680 ms for Claude Opus 4.6 versus 1370 ms for Ring Flash 2.0. Ring Flash 2.0 delivers faster throughput.
Verdict
Ring Flash 2.0 leads across the board in speed, making it the stronger overall choice in this comparison.
View Individual Model Pages
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Ring Flash 2.0 — FAQ
Which is better, Claude Opus 4.6 or Ring Flash 2.0?
Ring Flash 2.0 wins on more benchmarks overall (2 vs 1). However, the best choice depends on your specific needs — each model excels in different areas.
How does Claude Opus 4.6 compare to Ring Flash 2.0 for coding?
SWE-bench Verified data is not available for both models. Check the detailed comparison charts above for other coding-related metrics.
Is Claude Opus 4.6 cheaper than Ring Flash 2.0?
Complete pricing data is not available for both models. Check the pricing section of the comparison above for available cost information.
Which is faster, Claude Opus 4.6 or Ring Flash 2.0?
Ring Flash 2.0 is faster, generating output at 83 tok/s compared to 68 tok/s. Faster output speed means shorter wait times for API responses.
What benchmarks does the Claude Opus 4.6 vs Ring Flash 2.0 comparison cover?
This comparison covers 3 benchmarks including Output Speed, Time to First Token, Context Length. Metrics span general intelligence, coding, math, reasoning, speed, and cost categories.