Model comparison
GLM-4.7 vs Ring-2.6-1T
GLM-4.7 has enough public results to be ranked (#124); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
Ant Group (inclusionAI)Summary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 scores higher in 1 category and Ring-2.6-1T in 1 category; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where GLM-4.7 leads 44.0 to 40.7.
Side by side
| GLM-4.7 | Ring-2.6-1T | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 42.0 | 36.9 |
| Released | 2025-12-22 | 2026-05-14 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 205K | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.60 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.20 | — |
| Results tracked | 36 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-4.7 leads
GLM-4.7: 44.0 (#79), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.7
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 45.1% | 42.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 399.48 | 432.57 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1435 | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1454 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 33.4% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 2,377 | — |
Reasoning Ring-2.6-1T leads
GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164), Ring-2.6-1T: 26.1
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 1.7% | 3.7% |
| SimpleBench | 47.7% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 6% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.51 | — |
Math Not comparable
GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 83.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 6% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1423 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 2.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 0% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 83.3% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 32.2% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.7% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1424 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1417 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1495 | — |
| LMArena French | 1432 | — |
| LMArena German | 1424 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1439 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1399 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1423 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1434 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GLM-4.7: 74.4 (#95), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1411 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| CL-bench | 15.9% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 10.9% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1432 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1435 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1401 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1413 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1446 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-4.7 better than Ring-2.6-1T?
GLM-4.7 has enough public results to be ranked (#124); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is GLM-4.7 or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?
GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.0 versus 40.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7 and Ring-2.6-1T share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.