Model comparison

o3-mini vs Ring-2.6-1T

o3-mini has enough public results to be ranked (#212); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

o3-mini OpenAI

36.7

Rank #212 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. o3-mini scores higher in 1 category and Ring-2.6-1T in 1 category; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Ring-2.6-1T leads 26.1 to 16.3.
  • Ring-2.6-1T has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

o3-mini and Ring-2.6-1T specifications
o3-miniRing-2.6-1T
ProviderOpenAIAnt Group (inclusionAI)
Noometry Index36.736.9
Released2024-12-202026-05-14
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window200K—
Max output100K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.10—
Output $ / M tokens$4.40—
Results tracked513

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

Category by category

Coding Too close to call

o3-mini: 40.8 (#132), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.7

Coding benchmarks
Benchmarko3-miniRing-2.6-1T
SciCode39.8%42.4%
Aider Polyglot60.4%—
GSO1.3%—
WeirdML43.7%—
LiveBench Coding82.7%—
LMArena Coding1378—
CadEval54%—
ALE-Bench—432.57

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

o3-mini: 29.6 (#84), Ring-2.6-1T: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmarko3-miniRing-2.6-1T
Cybench22.5%—

Reasoning Ring-2.6-1T leads

o3-mini: 16.3 (#305), Ring-2.6-1T: 26.1

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmarko3-miniRing-2.6-1T
CritPt0.3%3.7%
ARC-AGI-23%—
SimpleBench22.8%—
ARC-AGI-134.5%—
Chess Puzzles17%—
LiveBench Reasoning89.6%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1366—
Mystery Game Puzzles7%—
DTBench68.8%—
LiveBench Data Analysis70.6%—
LMCA19%—
Epoch Capabilities Index140.34—
ForecastBench59.6—
LiveBench75.9%—

Math Not comparable

o3-mini: 28.1 (#244), Ring-2.6-1T: —

Knowledge Not comparable

o3-mini: 38.3 (#146), Ring-2.6-1T: —

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmarko3-miniRing-2.6-1T
GPQA Diamond77%—
SimpleQA Verified15.3%—
Confabulations17.9%—
LMArena Expert1364—

Multilingual Not comparable

o3-mini: 45.7 (#164), Ring-2.6-1T: —

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmarko3-miniRing-2.6-1T
LMArena Non-English1319—
LMArena Chinese1379—
LMArena French1334—
LMArena German1303—
LMArena Japanese1286—
LMArena Korean1314—
LMArena Russian1304—
LMArena Spanish1321—

Instruction Following Not comparable

o3-mini: 75.1 (#72), Ring-2.6-1T: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmarko3-miniRing-2.6-1T
LiveBench Instruction Following84.4%—
LMArena Instruction Following1337—

Long Context Not comparable

o3-mini: 33.8 (#256), Ring-2.6-1T: —

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmarko3-miniRing-2.6-1T
Fiction.LiveBench50%—
LMArena Longer Query1343—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

o3-mini: 50.3 (#182), Ring-2.6-1T: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmarko3-miniRing-2.6-1T
LMArena Text1337—
LMArena Creative Writing1286—
Short-Story Creative Writing61.7%—
LMArena Multi-Turn1320—
LiveBench Language50.7%—

Frequently asked questions

Is o3-mini better than Ring-2.6-1T?

o3-mini has enough public results to be ranked (#212); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Is o3-mini or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (40.8 vs 40.7); test both on your own repository before choosing.

How many benchmarks do o3-mini and Ring-2.6-1T share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. o3-mini has 51 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper