Model comparison
o1 vs Ring-2.6-1T
o1 has enough public results to be ranked (#143); 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 o1 leads 46.1 to 40.7.
- Ring-2.6-1T has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| o1 | Ring-2.6-1T | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 36.9 |
| Released | 2024-09-12 | 2026-05-14 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 200K | — |
| Max output | 100K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $60 | — |
| Results tracked | 52 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding o1 leads
o1: 46.1 (#70), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.7
| Benchmark | o1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 61.7% | — |
| SciCode | — | 42.4% |
| WeirdML | 47.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 69.7% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1367 | — |
| CadEval | 56% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 432.57 |
| HumanEval+ | 89% | — |
| MBPP+ | 80.2% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
o1: 24.6 (#117), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 10% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 51.1% | — |
Reasoning o1 leads
o1: 27.9 (#111), Ring-2.6-1T: 26.1
| Benchmark | o1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 41.7% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 30.7% | — |
| CritPt | — | 3.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | 15% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 91.6% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1371 | — |
| DTBench | 74.7% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 65.5% | — |
| LMCA | 22.3% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.91 | — |
| LiveBench | 75.7% | — |
Math Not comparable
o1: 36.1 (#175), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 14.7% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.3% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 80.3% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1388 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 94.7% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 9.3% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
o1: 41.5 (#110), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 76.8% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 41.1% | — |
| Confabulations | 11.7% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1361 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
o1: 34.2 (#93), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1168 | — |
| GeoBench | 80% | — |
| VPCT | 37% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 41.4% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
o1: 48.6 (#142), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1358 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1394 | — |
| LMArena French | 1344 | — |
| LMArena German | 1337 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1346 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1396 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1356 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1345 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
o1: 74.8 (#86), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 81.5% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1367 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
o1: 50.3 (#9), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 83.3% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1378 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
o1: 55.6 (#144), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1366 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1348 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 70.2% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1369 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 65.4% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is o1 better than Ring-2.6-1T?
o1 has enough public results to be ranked (#143); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is o1 or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?
o1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.1 versus 40.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do o1 and Ring-2.6-1T share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.