Model comparison
Grok 4 vs Ring-2.6-1T
Grok 4 has enough public results to be ranked (#49); 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 reasoning, where Grok 4 leads 36.9 to 25.3.
- Ring-2.6-1T has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Grok 4 | Ring-2.6-1T | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 47.8 | 36.3 |
| Released | 2025-07-09 | 2026-05-14 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 48 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Grok 4 leads
Grok 4: 49.9 (#44), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.1
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 79.6% | — |
| SciCode | — | 42.4% |
| WeirdML | 45.7% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1408 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 432.57 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Grok 4: 32.1 (#62), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 27.2% | — |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 63% | — |
| GDPval | 21.1% | — |
| Cybench | 43% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 47.3% | — |
| BALROG | 43.6% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1142 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 66.6% | — |
Reasoning Grok 4 leads
Grok 4: 36.9 (#59), Ring-2.6-1T: 25.3
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 16% | — |
| SimpleBench | 60.5% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 73.6% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 66.7% | — |
| CritPt | — | 3.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | 28% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1409 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 146.46 | — |
| ForecastBench | 60.9 | — |
Math Not comparable
Grok 4: 46.5 (#58), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 84% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 60.3% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1422 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 19.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 2.1% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Grok 4: 53.7 (#50), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 87% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 85.1% | — |
| Confabulations | 12.4% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 72.7% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1417 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Grok 4: 33.1 (#89), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1211 | — |
| GeoBench | 45% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Grok 4: 52.0 (#98), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1403 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1428 | — |
| LMArena French | 1418 | — |
| LMArena German | 1429 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1396 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1376 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1409 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1419 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Grok 4: 79.4 (#4), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | 94.9% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1387 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Grok 4: 63.1 (#4), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 94.4% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1409 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Grok 4: 58.7 (#111), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Grok 4 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1412 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1397 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 76.9% | — |
| WildBench | 79.7% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1416 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Grok 4 better than Ring-2.6-1T?
Grok 4 has enough public results to be ranked (#49); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is Grok 4 or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?
Grok 4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 49.9 versus 40.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Grok 4 and Ring-2.6-1T share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4 has 48 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.