Model comparison
Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 vs Ring-2.6-1T
Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 has enough public results to be ranked (#193); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Tencent
Ant Group (inclusionAI)Summary
- The widest gap is in coding, where Ring-2.6-1T leads 40.7 to 37.1.
- Ring-2.6-1T has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 | Ring-2.6-1T | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Tencent | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 37.9 | 36.9 |
| Released | — | 2026-05-14 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 12 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Ring-2.6-1T leads
Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10: 37.1 (#197), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.7
| Benchmark | Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 42.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1270 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 432.57 |
Reasoning Ring-2.6-1T leads
Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10: 25.0 (#154), Ring-2.6-1T: 26.1
| Benchmark | Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 3.7% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1264 | — |
Math Not comparable
Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10: 35.6 (#179), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1274 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10: 34.2 (#197), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1248 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10: 41.7 (#203), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1262 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1319 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1258 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10: 65.5 (#219), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1245 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10: 39.5 (#173), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1301 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10: 47.2 (#214), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1274 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1242 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1275 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 better than Ring-2.6-1T?
Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 has enough public results to be ranked (#193); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?
Ring-2.6-1T scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.7 versus 37.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 and Ring-2.6-1T share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Hunyuan Standard 2025 02 10 has 12 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.