Model comparison
DeepSeek-V3.1 vs Ring-2.6-1T
DeepSeek-V3.1 has enough public results to be ranked (#108); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
DeepSeek
Ant Group (inclusionAI)Side by side
| DeepSeek-V3.1 | Ring-2.6-1T | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | DeepSeek | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 42.8 | 36.9 |
| Released | 2025-08-21 | 2026-05-14 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 164K | — |
| Max output | 8K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.25 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.95 | — |
| Results tracked | 27 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
DeepSeek-V3.1: 40.3 (#144), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.7
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 42.4% |
| WeirdML | 38.4% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1417 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 432.57 |
Reasoning DeepSeek-V3.1 leads
DeepSeek-V3.1: 27.9 (#110), Ring-2.6-1T: 26.1
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 40% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 53.2% | — |
| CritPt | — | 3.7% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1417 | — |
| DTBench | 82.7% | — |
| LMCA | 24.3% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 139.92 | — |
| ForecastBench | 58 | — |
Math Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.1: 38.9 (#122), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1420 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.1: 43.7 (#90), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 5.5% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1405 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.1: 51.6 (#106), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1400 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1469 | — |
| LMArena French | 1447 | — |
| LMArena German | 1411 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1378 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1337 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1405 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1431 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.1: 73.9 (#110), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1400 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.1: 36.3 (#232), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 52.8% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1422 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
DeepSeek-V3.1: 60.3 (#98), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | DeepSeek-V3.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1420 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1401 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1436 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1408 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is DeepSeek-V3.1 better than Ring-2.6-1T?
DeepSeek-V3.1 has enough public results to be ranked (#108); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is DeepSeek-V3.1 or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (40.3 vs 40.7); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do DeepSeek-V3.1 and Ring-2.6-1T share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. DeepSeek-V3.1 has 27 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.