Model comparison
DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus vs Ring-2.6-1T
DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus has enough public results to be ranked (#97); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeek
Ant Group (inclusionAI)Summary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus scores higher in 2 categories and Ring-2.6-1T in 0 categories; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
Side by side
| DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus | Ring-2.6-1T | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 43.1 | 36.9 |
| Released | 2025-09-22 | 2026-05-14 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 164K | — |
| Max output | 147K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.27 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1 | — |
| Results tracked | 16 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus leads
DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 42.0 (#113), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.7
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 40.6% | 42.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 745.17 | 432.57 |
| LMArena Coding | 1426 | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 26.4 (#133), Ring-2.6-1T: 26.1
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 1.7% | 3.7% |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 57.4% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1426 | — |
| DTBench | 81.3% | — |
| LMCA | 28.6% | — |
Math Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 38.5 (#137), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1402 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 52.1 (#92), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1407 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1436 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 74.0 (#106), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1404 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 43.4 (#97), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1421 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus: 61.0 (#92), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1419 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1403 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1411 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus better than Ring-2.6-1T?
DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus has enough public results to be ranked (#97); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?
DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.0 versus 40.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus and Ring-2.6-1T share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-V3.1-Terminus has 16 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.