Model comparison
ERNIE 5.1 vs Ring-2.6-1T
ERNIE 5.1 has enough public results to be ranked (#83); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Baidu
Ant Group (inclusionAI)Summary
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Ring-2.6-1T leads 26.1 to 21.9.
- Ring-2.6-1T has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| ERNIE 5.1 | Ring-2.6-1T | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Baidu | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 43.8 | 36.9 |
| Released | — | 2026-05-14 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 19 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding ERNIE 5.1 leads
ERNIE 5.1: 44.0 (#76), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.7
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 42.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1488 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 432.57 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
ERNIE 5.1: —, Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Search | 1227 | — |
Reasoning Ring-2.6-1T leads
ERNIE 5.1: 21.9 (#211), Ring-2.6-1T: 26.1
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 23.4% | — |
| CritPt | — | 3.7% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1481 | — |
Math Not comparable
ERNIE 5.1: 40.3 (#92), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1481 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
ERNIE 5.1: 41.9 (#102), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1492 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
ERNIE 5.1: 55.5 (#29), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1454 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1508 | — |
| LMArena French | 1488 | — |
| LMArena German | 1470 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1422 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1427 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1459 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1473 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
ERNIE 5.1: 76.7 (#37), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1460 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
ERNIE 5.1: 44.7 (#59), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1462 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
ERNIE 5.1: 65.1 (#52), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | ERNIE 5.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1468 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1441 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1471 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is ERNIE 5.1 better than Ring-2.6-1T?
ERNIE 5.1 has enough public results to be ranked (#83); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is ERNIE 5.1 or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?
ERNIE 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.0 versus 40.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do ERNIE 5.1 and Ring-2.6-1T share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. ERNIE 5.1 has 19 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.