Model comparison
Grok 4.1 vs Ring-2.6-1T
Grok 4.1 has enough public results to be ranked (#134); 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 33.7.
- Ring-2.6-1T has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4.1 | Ring-2.6-1T | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 41.5 | 36.9 |
| Released | 2025-11-17 | 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 Ring-2.6-1T leads
Grok 4.1: 33.7 (#253), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.7
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1214 | — |
| SciCode | — | 42.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1445 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 432.57 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 34.1 (#49), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 39% | — |
Reasoning Grok 4.1 leads
Grok 4.1: 29.5 (#91), Ring-2.6-1T: 26.1
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 3.7% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1435 | — |
Math Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 38.9 (#120), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1422 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 39.5 (#133), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1417 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 53.4 (#68), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1425 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1465 | — |
| LMArena French | 1448 | — |
| LMArena German | 1446 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1397 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1407 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1434 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1438 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 73.8 (#111), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1400 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 43.2 (#100), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1416 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Grok 4.1: 62.4 (#75), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4.1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1437 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1411 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1437 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4.1 better than Ring-2.6-1T?
Grok 4.1 has enough public results to be ranked (#134); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is Grok 4.1 or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?
Ring-2.6-1T scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.7 versus 33.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4.1 and Ring-2.6-1T share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.1 has 19 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.