Noometry

Model comparison

GLM-5.3-Flash vs Ring-2.6-1T

GLM-5.3-Flash has enough public results to be ranked (#41); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

GLM-5.3-Flash Z.ai (Zhipu)

51.8

Rank #41 Confirmed

Ring-2.6-1T Ant Group (inclusionAI)

36.9

Unranked Sparse

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-5.3-Flash 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-5.3-Flash leads 48.0 to 26.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is CritPt: 15.4% for GLM-5.3-Flash and 3.7% for Ring-2.6-1T.

Side by side

GLM-5.3-FlashRing-2.6-1T
ProviderZ.ai (Zhipu)Ant Group (inclusionAI)
Noometry Index51.836.9
Released2026-08-202026-05-14
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window1M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.15—
Output $ / M tokens$0.50—
Results tracked403

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.1 (#31), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.7

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashRing-2.6-1T
SciCode51.6%42.4%
ALE-Bench303.55432.57
DeepSWE63.4%—
FrontierCode31.8%—
CursorBench36.8%—
LMArena WebDev1609—
FrontierSWE18.1%—
LMArena Coding1508—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 34.2 (#47), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashRing-2.6-1T
APEX-Agents52.8%—
GDP.pdf14%—

Reasoning GLM-5.3-Flash leads

GLM-5.3-Flash: 48.0 (#42), Ring-2.6-1T: 26.1

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashRing-2.6-1T
CritPt15.4%3.7%
ARC-AGI-265.8%—
ARC-AGI-191%—
Chess Puzzles14%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1491—
Mystery Game Puzzles8%—
Surface Evolver Bench52.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.15—
Epoch Capabilities Index151.88—

Math Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 53.3 (#47), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashRing-2.6-1T
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)55.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 417.1%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202593.9%—
ProofBench21%—
LMArena Math1500—

Knowledge Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 58.4 (#36), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashRing-2.6-1T
GPQA Diamond90.2%—
LMArena Expert1513—

Multimodal Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 42.8 (#27), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashRing-2.6-1T
LMArena Vision1296—

Multilingual Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 56.0 (#25), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashRing-2.6-1T
LMArena Non-English1462—
LMArena Chinese1527—
LMArena French1496—
LMArena German1470—
LMArena Japanese1429—
LMArena Korean1446—
LMArena Russian1469—
LMArena Spanish1471—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 77.5 (#20), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashRing-2.6-1T
LMArena Instruction Following1478—

Long Context Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 45.4 (#39), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashRing-2.6-1T
LMArena Longer Query1482—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GLM-5.3-Flash: 65.3 (#50), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkGLM-5.3-FlashRing-2.6-1T
LMArena Text1471—
LMArena Creative Writing1442—
LMArena Multi-Turn1467—

Frequently asked questions

Is GLM-5.3-Flash better than Ring-2.6-1T?

GLM-5.3-Flash has enough public results to be ranked (#41); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Is GLM-5.3-Flash or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?

GLM-5.3-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.1 versus 40.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do GLM-5.3-Flash and Ring-2.6-1T share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-5.3-Flash has 40 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper