Model comparison
Qwen Plus vs Ring-2.6-1T
Qwen Plus has enough public results to be ranked (#210); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)
Ant Group (inclusionAI)Summary
- Ring-2.6-1T has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Qwen Plus | Ring-2.6-1T | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 37.1 | 36.9 |
| Released | 2024-01-25 | 2026-05-14 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 33K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.40 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.20 | — |
| Results tracked | 20 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Ring-2.6-1T leads
Qwen Plus: 38.9 (#167), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.7
| Benchmark | Qwen Plus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 42.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1328 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 432.57 |
Reasoning Qwen Plus leads
Qwen Plus: 28.4 (#107), Ring-2.6-1T: 26.1
| Benchmark | Qwen Plus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 63.3% | — |
| CritPt | — | 3.7% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1317 | — |
| DTBench | 81.1% | — |
| LMCA | 24% | — |
Math Not comparable
Qwen Plus: 23.3 (#271), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen Plus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 17.8% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1326 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 65.3% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 1.7% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Qwen Plus: 27.4 (#251), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen Plus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 48.1% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1328 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen Plus: 45.1 (#175), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen Plus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1310 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1347 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1251 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1323 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen Plus: 68.8 (#181), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen Plus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1303 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen Plus: 40.3 (#158), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen Plus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1324 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Qwen Plus: 52.2 (#176), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen Plus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1326 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1293 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1336 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen Plus better than Ring-2.6-1T?
Qwen Plus has enough public results to be ranked (#210); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is Qwen Plus or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?
Ring-2.6-1T scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.7 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen Plus and Ring-2.6-1T share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen Plus has 20 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.