Model comparison
GLM-5.1 vs Ring-2.6-1T
GLM-5.1 has enough public results to be ranked (#59); 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-5.1 scores higher in 2 categories and Ring-2.6-1T in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GLM-5.1 leads 39.1 to 26.1.
Side by side
| GLM-5.1 | Ring-2.6-1T | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 47.8 | 36.9 |
| Released | 2026-04-07 | 2026-05-14 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 200K | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.40 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.40 | — |
| Results tracked | 41 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 48.7 (#55), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.7
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 43.8% | 42.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 887.1 | 432.57 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 74.2% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1508 | — |
| WeirdML | 57.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1485 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 24.9 (#113), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 40.9% | — |
| ExploitBench | 18.1% | — |
| GBAEval | 0% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,634 | — |
Reasoning GLM-5.1 leads
GLM-5.1: 39.1 (#60), Ring-2.6-1T: 26.1
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 4.6% | 3.7% |
| SimpleBench | 55.1% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 77.7% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 19% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 69.8% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1472 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.84 | — |
Math Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 49.7 (#60), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 36.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 67.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 22.2% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1473 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 33.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 12.5% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 54.9 (#50), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 89.9% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 34% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1476 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 55.0 (#36), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1447 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1515 | — |
| LMArena French | 1474 | — |
| LMArena German | 1465 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1434 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1418 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1454 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1469 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 76.3 (#42), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1451 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 44.9 (#53), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1466 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GLM-5.1: 66.9 (#31), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | GLM-5.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1461 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1453 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1592 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1472 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GLM-5.1 better than Ring-2.6-1T?
GLM-5.1 has enough public results to be ranked (#59); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is GLM-5.1 or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?
GLM-5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 40.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do GLM-5.1 and Ring-2.6-1T share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.1 has 41 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.