Model comparison
Llama 3.1-405B vs Ring-2.6-1T
Llama 3.1-405B has enough public results to be ranked (#279); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Ant Group (inclusionAI)Summary
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Ring-2.6-1T leads 25.3 to 16.4.
Side by side
| Llama 3.1-405B | Ring-2.6-1T | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 30.4 | 36.3 |
| Released | 2024-07-23 | 2026-05-14 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 42 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Ring-2.6-1T leads
Llama 3.1-405B: 32.7 (#257), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.1
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 42.4% |
| WeirdML | 21.4% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1291 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 432.57 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Llama 3.1-405B: 20.9 (#131), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | 7.4% | — |
| Cybench | 7.5% | — |
Reasoning Ring-2.6-1T leads
Llama 3.1-405B: 16.4 (#293), Ring-2.6-1T: 25.3
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 23% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 45% | — |
| CritPt | — | 3.7% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1270 | — |
| DTBench | 61.4% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 82.9% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 128.76 | — |
| ForecastBench | 59.9 | — |
| HellaSwag | 89.2% | — |
| PIQA | 85.9% | — |
| WinoGrande | 89.2% | — |
Math Not comparable
Llama 3.1-405B: 17.3 (#283), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 9.7% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 24.9% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1281 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 49.8% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Llama 3.1-405B: 30.4 (#221), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 50.9% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 72.3% | — |
| Confabulations | 17.6% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 52.2% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1243 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 95.3% | — |
| MMLU | 84.5% | — |
| TriviaQA | 82.7% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Llama 3.1-405B: 40.9 (#209), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1248 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1242 | — |
| LMArena French | 1278 | — |
| LMArena German | 1252 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1208 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1184 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1265 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1259 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Llama 3.1-405B: 66.1 (#209), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | 81.1% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1259 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Llama 3.1-405B: 38.4 (#192), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1266 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Llama 3.1-405B: 39.1 (#246), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-405B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1284 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1262 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 870 | — |
| WildBench | 78.3% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1297 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 3.1-405B better than Ring-2.6-1T?
Llama 3.1-405B has enough public results to be ranked (#279); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is Llama 3.1-405B or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?
Ring-2.6-1T scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.1 versus 32.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3.1-405B and Ring-2.6-1T share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.1-405B has 42 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.