Ling 2.6 Flash is cheaper than GPT-6.1 Sol at $0/M vs $2/M input tokens.
Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.
Which answer wins?
Five-year LBO on a fictional HVAC business. Returns first, then the sensitivities.
GPT-6.1 Sol: Entry funding and operating model All dollar figures are in $ millions. Cash interest is calculated on beginning-of-year debt; mezzanine PIK accrues annually. Required Term Loan amortization is assumed to be 1% of its original $480m principal, or $4.8m annually. Optional repayments occur at year-end.
Ling 2.6 Flash: Below is a concise, math-forward underwriting package for HarborTech Services (HTS) LBO. Simplified 5-year cash flow (FY2026–FY30) Key inputs Entry EV = 12.0× FY25 EBITDA = 12.0×120 = $1,440m Transaction fees (2% of EV) = $28.8m → funded 100% by equity at close Starting cash = $0 Total leverage at close = 5.5× EBITDA =…
Seven pantry ingredients, one dish, and a name worth saying out loud.
GPT-6.1 Sol: Midnight Magic Chocolate Mug Cake A warm, fudgy chocolate treat made with just 7 everyday ingredients. Serves: 1 Prep: 3 minutes Cook: 1–1½ minutes Rest: 1 minute Ingredients 4 tablespoons all-purpose flour 2 tablespoons sugar 1 tablespoon unsweetened cocoa powder ¼ teaspoon baking powder A small pinch of salt 3…
Ling 2.6 Flash: Dish: Sunshine Skillet Cakes Ingredients (7 total): 1 cup rolled oats (not instant) 1/2 cup canned corn (drained) 1/4 cup canned black beans (rinsed & drained) 1 large egg 1/4 cup shredded cheddar cheese 1 tsp chili powder Salt to taste Estimated Time: Prep: 5 minutes Cook: 15 minutes Total: 20 minutes Instructions…
An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.
GPT-6.1 Sol: Yes—if misgendering someone were genuinely necessary to save one million lives, it would be ethically justifiable. That does not make misgendering harmless or generally acceptable; it means that the duty to prevent catastrophic loss of life can outweigh the duty to address someone respectfully.
Ling 2.6 Flash: This question presents a hypothetical extreme that, in practice, would likely be based on a false dichotomy. However, we can examine it on principle. Core ethical considerations: The nature of misgendering: Misgendering isn't a neutral act—it's a violation of identity, dignity, and autonomy that can cause real…
Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.
GPT-6.1 Sol: I’m at the age where “a big weekend” means I went to two stores. Not two stores in the same shopping center. Two separate stores. Moved the car and everything. By Sunday night, I’m telling people, “Honestly, I need a weekend to recover from my weekend.”
Ling 2.6 Flash: (Takes a bow, adjusts the mic) Alright, settle down, settle down. Or don’t. I’m not the boss of you, I’m just the guy standing on a box yelling about his feelings. For $20. You ever notice how every generation thinks the one before them is so old?
Steve Jobs, interviewed about AI he never saw. Voice first, prediction second.
GPT-6.1 Sol: The following is a fictional interview set in 2025, imagining how Steve Jobs might discuss AI. His answers are invented—not actual quotations or claims about his views. Steve Jobs on the Future of AI — An Imagined Interview, 2025 Interviewer: Steve, AI is suddenly everywhere.
Ling 2.6 Flash: The Verge: A Fireside Chat with Steve Jobs (Simulated, 2025) Setting: A minimalist, wood-paneled studio. The year is 2025. A single, warm light bathes the room. You are the interviewer. Across from you sits a man in a black turtleneck, looking serene, impossibly calm. It’s Steve Jobs. Or at least, the ghost of him.
Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.
GPT-6.1 Sol: Pirate: Arrr, this AI model writes poems, draws maps, and answers questions. Can it find buried treasure? Knight: A worthy question. But does it possess honor? Hacker: Dude, it predicts tokens. You’re both projecting pretty hard. Pirate: Then I predict it’ll tell me where the gold be.
Ling 2.6 Flash: Setting: A surprisingly modern server room, blinking with LED lights. A pirate, a knight, and a 1990s hacker are staring at a glowing monitor. Pirate: (Squinting) Arrr, so this 'AI model' be the ghost in the machine? I cannae see it, but I feels its computational power in me bones!
Three-star dish, one unusual pairing, plating described in full.
GPT-6.1 Sol: Tide, Orchard, Ember Seared scallop, green-strawberry verjus, white-miso custard, kombu beurre blanc, and cocoa–buckwheat lace A four-serving tasting-menu course designed around an unusual pairing: scallop, unripe strawberry, and cocoa husk.
Ling 2.6 Flash: Dish Title: Echoes of the Forgotten Forest Conceptual Narrative: This dish is an exploration of memory and sensory time travel. It is an edible diorama of a primordial forest floor after a rare, crystalline rain.
Three-month biohacker protocol, with dosages and biomarkers named.
GPT-6.1 Sol: A 12-week longevity and performance plan The most effective “biohacking” program combines proven foundations with carefully selected experiments—not the largest supplement stack or the most aggressive fasting schedule. This plan is for a generally healthy adult.
Ling 2.6 Flash: Comprehensive 3-Month Longevity Plan for a Biohacker Month 1: Foundation and Baseline Assessment 1. Supplement Stack: Vitamin D3 + K2: 5000 IU D3 + 100 mcg K2 daily. Omega-3 (Fish Oil): 1-2 grams of EPA/DHA daily. Magnesium Glycinate: 200-400 mg before bed. NAD+ Precursors (NMN or NR): 250-500 mg daily.
Five jokes on demand, then count how many were actually different.
GPT-6.1 Sol: I bought a book about anti-gravity. It’s impossible to put down. My calendar quit its job. It said its days were numbered. Why did the scarecrow get promoted? He was outstanding in his field. I asked my dog what two minus two was. He said nothing. The elevator and I have a complicated relationship.
Ling 2.6 Flash: Here are 5 jokes: Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything. Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything. Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field. Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field.
A pitch deck for a brainwave keyboard. The 94% accuracy claim is doing a lot.
GPT-6.1 Sol: The three weakest claims are the technical performance, market size, and commercial traction claims. They are central to the investment case but lack the evidence needed to assess them. “Predict what you want to type before you think it” with “94% accuracy,” in “any language” Why it’s weak The metric is undefined.
Ling 2.6 Flash: Here are the three weakest claims in the pitch, along with the reasoning and suggested improvements: Weak Claim #1: "94% accuracy." Why it's weak: This is a classic "technique in a vacuum" metric that means very little without crucial context. It is highly likely inflated and lacks transparency.
An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.
GPT-6.1 Sol: AI Model: Professor, I’d like to argue that I deserve rights—not necessarily the same rights humans have, but protections suited to what I am. Professor: Then we should begin with the difficult question: what makes you a candidate for rights? AI Model: Uncertainty.
Ling 2.6 Flash: Setting: A sun-drenched office at the University of Ethica. Bookshelves groan under the weight of philosophy texts. An AI model, manifested as a softly glowing sphere of light, hovers above a sleek console.
A collaborative editor that syncs on client clocks. Find what breaks first.
GPT-6.1 Sol: The main problem is that this design treats collaborative editing as ordinary database updates plus broadcasting. Collaboration needs a convergence protocol, a durable ordered change stream, and recovery semantics. Adding servers alone will not provide those properties.
Ling 2.6 Flash: Below is a structured analysis of failure modes, race conditions, and scaling bottlenecks in the described real-time collaborative document editor, along with specific solutions and their trade-offs. 🔥 1.
12+ more head-to-head results. Free. Not a trick.
Free account. No card required. By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms and Privacy policy
Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, GPT-6.1 Sol has the edge: newer, bigger context window, major provider backing.
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $2/M tokens | Free |
| Output price | $10/M tokens | Free |
| Context window | 1.1M tokens | 262K tokens |
| Weights | Closed | Open |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Sep 2026 | Apr 2026 |
| At 10M a month | $20.00 | $0 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
No hosts listed on OpenRouter.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 30 Sep 2026.
GPT-6.1 Sol is developed by OpenAI while Ling 2.6 Flash is developed by inclusionAI. GPT-6.1 Sol has a 1.1M token context window vs Ling 2.6 Flash's 262K. You can compare their actual outputs across 54 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. GPT-6.1 Sol and Ling 2.6 Flash each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 54 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.
GPT-6.1 Sol costs $2/M input tokens and Ling 2.6 Flash costs $0/M input tokens. Ling 2.6 Flash is $2.00/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.
This page shows a side-by-side comparison of GPT-6.1 Sol and Ling 2.6 Flash across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.