Model comparison
Grok 4 Fast vs Ring-2.6-1T
Grok 4 Fast has enough public results to be ranked (#164); 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 40.1 to 32.3.
- Ring-2.6-1T has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4 Fast | Ring-2.6-1T | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 39.0 | 36.3 |
| Released | 2025-09-19 | 2026-05-14 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 30 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Ring-2.6-1T leads
Grok 4 Fast: 32.3 (#264), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.1
| Benchmark | Grok 4 Fast | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1160 | — |
| SciCode | — | 42.4% |
| WeirdML | 42.9% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1429 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 432.57 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4 Fast: 29.3 (#80), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 Fast | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench Banking | 15.7% | — |
| Cybench | 30% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1171 | — |
Reasoning Ring-2.6-1T leads
Grok 4 Fast: 22.5 (#179), Ring-2.6-1T: 25.3
| Benchmark | Grok 4 Fast | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 5.3% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 66.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 48.5% | — |
| CritPt | — | 3.7% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1413 | — |
| DTBench | 82.7% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 144.21 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.5 | — |
Math Not comparable
Grok 4 Fast: 36.1 (#126), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 Fast | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1419 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Grok 4 Fast: 31.5 (#211), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 Fast | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 19.7% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1411 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Grok 4 Fast: 51.5 (#106), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 Fast | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1397 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1458 | — |
| LMArena French | 1433 | — |
| LMArena German | 1383 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1358 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1359 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1387 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1414 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Grok 4 Fast: 73.4 (#116), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 Fast | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1388 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Grok 4 Fast: 63.2 (#3), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 Fast | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 94.4% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1415 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Grok 4 Fast: 60.2 (#96), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 Fast | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1407 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1388 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1414 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4 Fast better than Ring-2.6-1T?
Grok 4 Fast has enough public results to be ranked (#164); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is Grok 4 Fast or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?
Ring-2.6-1T scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.1 versus 32.3 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4 Fast and Ring-2.6-1T share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4 Fast has 30 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.