Side-by-side comparison
DeepSeek V4 Flash vs Ling-2.6-flash
DeepSeek
DeepSeek V4 Flash
🔧 Tools
{} JSON
Input / 1M
$0.1260
Output / 1M
$0.2520
inclusionAI
Ling-2.6-flash
🔧 Tools
{} JSON
Input / 1M
$0.0800
Output / 1M
$0.2400
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | Ling-2.6-flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | inclusionAI |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 1,048,576 | 262,144 |
| Capabilities Optional capabilities the model advertises: vision (images), tools (function calling), json_mode (structured output). | tools, json_mode | tools, json_mode |
| Input $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens you send (prompt + context). Cheaper side highlighted. Glossary → | 0.1260 | 0.0800 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 0.2520 | 0.2400 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, DeepSeek V4 Flash or Ling-2.6-flash?
Ling-2.6-flash is cheaper than DeepSeek V4 Flash on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $0.029 per 1M tokens. Exact savings depend on your input-vs-output ratio — use the cost calculator on this page for a workload-specific estimate.
Which has a larger context window, DeepSeek V4 Flash or Ling-2.6-flash?
DeepSeek V4 Flash has the larger context window at 1M tokens versus 262k tokens for Ling-2.6-flash. That means DeepSeek V4 Flash can ingest about 4.0x as much text per request.
What is the difference between DeepSeek V4 Flash and Ling-2.6-flash?
DeepSeek V4 Flash comes from DeepSeek; Ling-2.6-flash comes from inclusionAI. They differ in pricing, context window, and supported capabilities — see the side-by-side table on this page for the exact figures, refreshed nightly.