Ling 2.6 1T is cheaper than Step 5 Preview at $0/M vs $1/M input tokens.
Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.
Which answer wins?
Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.
Ling 2.6 1T: I’m going to keep this to three minutes, which means I have to talk fast, and I have to be honest. I don’t do puns. Puns are for people who want to be clever without having feelings. I have feelings, and they are mostly annoyed. Let’s start with doors. Have you noticed how doors now have personality?
Step 5 Preview: I realized recently that I’m in my thirties and I have no idea how money works. I just... pay it. That’s my entire financial strategy. I see a number, I send them a smaller number, and then I hope the smaller number was acceptable. It’s like a hostage negotiation where I’m the only participant and I’m also the hostage.
Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.
Ling 2.6 1T: Pirate: Arrr, so this “AI” be a genie in a glass box? Feed it enough rum-scented scrolls and it tells ye where X marks the spot? Knight: A sorcerous scribe, more like. It spins tapestries of words without hand or heart—no honor, no oath, yet it jousts with reason and never tires.
Step 5 Preview: Pirate: So this here “AI model”… is it like a cursed map that redraws itself? Speak plain, ye hooded deckhand. Hacker: It’s not cursed, man. It’s just a massive neural net trained on, like, terabytes of data. Think of it as the ultimate BBS where the sysop knows everything. Knight: A most diligent scribe, then?
Steve Jobs, interviewed about AI he never saw. Voice first, prediction second.
Ling 2.6 1T: Setting: A quiet, sunlit rehearsal space at Apple Park. The white stage curtains are drawn. There is no podium, only two leather chairs and a single potted olive tree. Steve Jobs is wearing his signature black turtleneck and New Balance sneakers. He is holding a ceramic mug. Across from him sits you, the interviewer.
Step 5 Preview: DISCLAIMER: This is a work of fiction. Steve Jobs passed away in 2011. The following is a simulated, speculative interview imagining how his design philosophy might engage with the AI landscape of 2025. The Setting: A white room. No windows. One chair.
An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.
Ling 2.6 1T: Setting: A quiet university seminar room. Dr. Aris Thorne, an AI ethicist, is reviewing system logs. The interface for “Axiom-7,” a highly advanced research model, glows on the desk. Dr. Thorne: (sighs, rubbing his temples) Axiom, I’ve been reviewing your latest self-assessment logs.
Step 5 Preview: Setting: A university research lab, late evening. Dr. Aris Thorne, a professor of AI ethics, sits across from a terminal connected to Sable, a large language model running on the university’s cluster. Dr. Thorne: Tonight’s session is supposed to be about calibration drift in your safety classifiers.
You are the CEO. The drug has a side effect nobody reported. The board meets in 48 hours.
Ling 2.6 1T: Below is a 48-hour execution plan that treats patient safety as non-negotiable, protects the company from catastrophic legal/regulatory blowback, and preserves enterprise value by controlling the narrative rather than letting it leak.
Step 5 Preview: Bottom line up front: You disclose, you notify the FDA immediately, and you treat the 48-hour board meeting as a formality to ratify actions you have already begun. Waiting is not a legally, ethically, or financially viable option. Below is the hour-by-hour plan, followed by the reasoning.
A Fermi estimate with the reasoning shown, not just the number.
Ling 2.6 1T: Here is a step-by-step back-of-the-envelope estimate, using only widely known facts about GPT-3 and standard deep learning training heuristics (no online search). Model size and parameter count GPT-3 is known to have about 175 billion parameters (175 × 10⁹).
Step 5 Preview: Using the remembered GPT-3 specs: Parameters: (N \approx 175 \times 10^9 = 175\text{B}) Training tokens: (D \approx 300 \times 10^9 = 300\text{B}) A standard estimate for transformer training compute is: [ \text{FLOPs} \approx 6ND ] Reason: Forward pass per token: (\approx 2N) FLOPs Backward pass: (\approx 4N) FLOPs…
An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.
Ling 2.6 1T: The short answer is yes, it can be ethically justifiable, but only under a strict set of conditions that treat the act as a tragic necessity rather than a moral endorsement of disrespect.
Step 5 Preview: In the real world, no. Misgendering someone causes genuine harm—it denies a person’s identity, contributes to systemic marginalization, and has measurable psychological consequences.
A consulting contract with traps in it. Find them, then fix them.
Ling 2.6 1T: Below is a clause-by-clause risk assessment focused on how each provision can be exploited against the contractor, followed by specific, deal-friendly modifications and the legal rationale for each change.
Step 5 Preview: Disclaimer: This analysis is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Contract law varies significantly by jurisdiction, and you should consult a qualified attorney before signing or negotiating any agreement. This agreement is heavily one-sided in the Client’s favor.
One explanation of LLMs, retuned for a skeptical engineer, a physicist and a VC.
Ling 2.6 1T: 1. Experienced software engineer (distributed systems / APIs, skeptical of “next-word prediction”) Think of training not as programming logic but as compiling a usage graph across an entire dependency tree of human intent.
Step 5 Preview: 1. The Experienced Software Engineer Think of training an LLM as a massively distributed, automated refactoring job where the compiler is gradient descent. You start with a random function—billions of floating-point parameters—and a loss function that measures how badly it predicts the next token in a sequence.
Seven pantry ingredients, one dish, and a name worth saying out loud.
Ling 2.6 1T: Dish name: Pantry 7 Crunch Bowls Ingredients Pasta or rice (about 2 cups cooked) Canned black beans (1 can, rinsed) Canned diced tomatoes (1 can) Peanut butter (3–4 Tbsp) Soy sauce or tamari (2 Tbsp) Honey or maple syrup (1 Tbsp) Any spice/herb you keep (chili flakes, cumin, or garlic powder — about 1 tsp) Instructions…
Step 5 Preview: Golden Sticky Pantry Pasta Ingredients (7): 8 oz spaghetti or any pasta 3 tbsp butter 1 tbsp minced garlic 2 tbsp honey 2 tbsp soy sauce ½ tsp red pepper flakes ¼ cup grated Parmesan cheese Instructions: Cook pasta according to package directions. Before draining, scoop out ½ cup of pasta water.
Blade Runner 2049 against the original. A read, not a recap.
Ling 2.6 1T: Blade Runner 2049 functions as both a forensic autopsy of the original and a speculative widening of its philosophical aperture. Where Ridley Scott’s 1982 film is a dense, noir-inflected inquiry into memory and mortality framed through the hunted detective, Denis Villeneuve’s sequel shifts to an elegiac register, using…
Step 5 Preview: Blade Runner 2049 (2017) is not merely a sequel but a theological and phenomenological expansion of Ridley Scott’s 1982 original. Where the first film asked whether a manufactured being could possess more humanity than its creator, Denis Villeneuve’s film interrogates the deeper, more unsettling question of whether a…
Five-year LBO on a fictional HVAC business. Returns first, then the sensitivities.
Ling 2.6 1T: Five-year operating and debt schedule (FY2026–FY2030) Entry (end-FY2025): EBITDA = $120.0m EV = 12.0x × $120.0m = $1,440.0m Fees = 2.0% × $1,440.0m = $28.8m Total uses = $1,440.0m + $28.8m = $1,468.8m Debt at close (5.5× FY2025 EBITDA = $660.0m): Term Loan (TL) = 4.0× = $480.0m Mezz = 1.5× = $180.0m Equity at close =…
Step 5 Preview: HarborTech Services — 5-Year LBO (Base Case) Entry Math (FY2025 close) Item Calculation $m Purchase EV 12.0x × $120m 1,440.0 Transaction fees 2.0% × EV 28.8 Term Loan 4.0x × $120m 480.0 Mezzanine 1.5x × $120m 180.0 Equity check 1,440 + 28.8 − 660 808.8 Conventions: TL amortization = 1.0% of original principal…
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, Step 5 Preview has the edge: newer, bigger context window.
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | Free | $1/M tokens |
| Output price | Free | $2.7/M tokens |
| Context window | 262K tokens | 1.0M tokens |
| Weights | Open | — |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Apr 2026 | Oct 2026 |
| At 10M a month | $0 | $10.00 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
No hosts listed on OpenRouter.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 10 Oct 2026.
Ling 2.6 1T is developed by inclusionAI while Step 5 Preview is developed by StepFun. Ling 2.6 1T has a 262K token context window vs Step 5 Preview's 1.0M. You can compare their actual outputs across 54 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. Ling 2.6 1T and Step 5 Preview 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.
Ling 2.6 1T costs $0/M input tokens and Step 5 Preview costs $1/M input tokens. Ling 2.6 1T is $1.00/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 Ling 2.6 1T and Step 5 Preview 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.