Model comparison
Olmo 3.1 32b Think vs Ring-2.6-1T
Olmo 3.1 32b Think has enough public results to be ranked (#191); 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 Think | Ring-2.6-1T | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 37.3 | 36.3 |
| Released | — | 2026-05-14 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 15 | 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 Think: 37.1 (#186), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.1
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 42.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1292 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 432.57 |
Reasoning Ring-2.6-1T leads
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 24.1 (#151), Ring-2.6-1T: 25.3
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 3.7% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1272 | — |
Math Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 33.6 (#170), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1305 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 35.0 (#178), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1294 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.3 (#226), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1210 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1241 | — |
| LMArena French | 1262 | — |
| LMArena German | 1260 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1193 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1288 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 65.8 (#213), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1246 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 38.6 (#190), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1272 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Olmo 3.1 32b Think: 46.4 (#215), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Olmo 3.1 32b Think | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1271 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1226 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1252 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Olmo 3.1 32b Think better than Ring-2.6-1T?
Olmo 3.1 32b Think has enough public results to be ranked (#191); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is Olmo 3.1 32b Think or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?
Ring-2.6-1T scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.1 versus 37.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Olmo 3.1 32b Think and Ring-2.6-1T share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Olmo 3.1 32b Think has 15 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.