Model comparison
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct vs Ring-2.6-1T
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has enough public results to be ranked (#168); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)
Ant Group (inclusionAI)Side by side
| Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Ring-2.6-1T | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 39.4 | 36.9 |
| Released | — | 2026-05-14 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 16 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Ring-2.6-1T leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.5 (#157), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.7
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 42.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1347 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 432.57 |
Reasoning Too close to call
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 26.4 (#132), Ring-2.6-1T: 26.1
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 3.7% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1322 | — |
Math Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.3 (#167), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1305 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 36.1 (#175), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1308 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 42.6 (#191), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1275 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1304 | — |
| LMArena French | 1328 | — |
| LMArena German | 1282 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1206 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1268 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1336 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 68.6 (#187), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1299 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 39.9 (#166), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1312 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct: 50.2 (#185), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1311 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1264 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1309 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct better than Ring-2.6-1T?
Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has enough public results to be ranked (#168); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?
Ring-2.6-1T scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.7 versus 39.5 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct and Ring-2.6-1T share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3.1 32b Instruct has 16 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.