Noometry

Model comparison

Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct vs Ring-2.6-1T

Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct has enough public results to be ranked (#291); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct Meta

30.6

Rank #291 Confirmed

Ring-2.6-1T Ant Group (inclusionAI)

36.9

Unranked Sparse

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct scores higher in 0 categories and Ring-2.6-1T in 2 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Ring-2.6-1T leads 26.1 to 14.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 26% for Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct and 42.4% for Ring-2.6-1T.

Side by side

Llama-3.3-70B-InstructRing-2.6-1T
ProviderMetaAnt Group (inclusionAI)
Noometry Index30.636.9
Released2024-12-062026-05-14
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K—
Max output4K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.10—
Output $ / M tokens$0.32—
Results tracked433

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Ring-2.6-1T leads

Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 31.0 (#290), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.7

BenchmarkLlama-3.3-70B-InstructRing-2.6-1T
SciCode26%42.4%
WeirdML14.4%—
BigCodeBench Instruct46.9%—
LiveBench Coding36.6%—
LMArena Coding1268—
BigCodeBench Complete57.5%—
ALE-Bench—432.57

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 25.8 (#105), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkLlama-3.3-70B-InstructRing-2.6-1T
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard31.9%—
BALROG23%—

Reasoning Ring-2.6-1T leads

Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 14.1 (#327), Ring-2.6-1T: 26.1

BenchmarkLlama-3.3-70B-InstructRing-2.6-1T
CritPt0%3.7%
SimpleBench19.9%—
LiveBench Reasoning50.8%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1257—
DTBench59.5%—
LiveBench Data Analysis49.5%—
LMCA17.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index127.33—
ForecastBench58.6—
LiveBench50.2%—

Math Not comparable

Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 15.3 (#298), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkLlama-3.3-70B-InstructRing-2.6-1T
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20255.1%—
LiveBench Math42.2%—
LMArena Math1267—
MATH Level 541.6%—

Knowledge Not comparable

Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 30.6 (#226), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkLlama-3.3-70B-InstructRing-2.6-1T
GPQA Diamond47.4%—
Confabulations22.8%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate4.1%—
LMArena Expert1225—
MMLU86.3%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 39.9 (#220), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkLlama-3.3-70B-InstructRing-2.6-1T
LMArena Non-English1236—
LMArena Chinese1217—
LMArena French1281—
LMArena German1251—
LMArena Japanese1150—
LMArena Korean1143—
LMArena Russian1252—
LMArena Spanish1270—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 71.1 (#157), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkLlama-3.3-70B-InstructRing-2.6-1T
LiveBench Instruction Following82.7%—
LMArena Instruction Following1242—

Long Context Not comparable

Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 26.4 (#295), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkLlama-3.3-70B-InstructRing-2.6-1T
Fiction.LiveBench33.3%—
LMArena Longer Query1256—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct: 47.6 (#207), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkLlama-3.3-70B-InstructRing-2.6-1T
LMArena Text1274—
LMArena Creative Writing1250—
LMArena Multi-Turn1280—
LiveBench Language39.2%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct better than Ring-2.6-1T?

Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct has enough public results to be ranked (#291); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Is Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?

Ring-2.6-1T scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.7 versus 31.0 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct and Ring-2.6-1T share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct has 43 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper