Model comparison
GLM-4.5-Air vs Ring-2.6-1T
GLM-4.5-Air has enough public results to be ranked (#177); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Ant Group (inclusionAI)Summary
- The widest gap is in coding, where Ring-2.6-1T leads 40.7 to 33.3.
Side by side
| GLM-4.5-Air | Ring-2.6-1T | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 38.9 | 36.9 |
| Released | 2025-07-20 | 2026-05-14 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 131K | — |
| Max output | 98K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.20 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.10 | — |
| Results tracked | 27 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Ring-2.6-1T leads
GLM-4.5-Air: 33.3 (#259), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.7
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5-Air | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 42.4% |
| GSO | 2.9% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1397 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 432.57 |
Reasoning Ring-2.6-1T leads
GLM-4.5-Air: 24.1 (#166), Ring-2.6-1T: 26.1
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5-Air | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 43% | — |
| CritPt | — | 3.7% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1379 | — |
| ForecastBench | 59.2 | — |
Math Not comparable
GLM-4.5-Air: 36.2 (#170), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5-Air | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Omni-MATH | 39.1% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1396 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
GLM-4.5-Air: 35.0 (#191), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5-Air | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8.1% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 76.2% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 9.3% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 59.4% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1370 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
GLM-4.5-Air: 49.1 (#135), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5-Air | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1366 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1426 | — |
| LMArena French | 1399 | — |
| LMArena German | 1377 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1348 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1308 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1373 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1386 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GLM-4.5-Air: 69.6 (#171), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5-Air | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | 81.2% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1354 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
GLM-4.5-Air: 41.6 (#135), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5-Air | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1366 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GLM-4.5-Air: 55.9 (#139), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.5-Air | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1384 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1343 | — |
| WildBench | 78.9% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1371 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.5-Air better than Ring-2.6-1T?
GLM-4.5-Air has enough public results to be ranked (#177); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is GLM-4.5-Air or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?
Ring-2.6-1T scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.7 versus 33.3 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.5-Air and Ring-2.6-1T share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.5-Air has 27 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.