Model comparison
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B vs Ring-2.6-1T
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has enough public results to be ranked (#239); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)
Ant Group (inclusionAI)Summary
- The widest gap is in coding, where Ring-2.6-1T leads 40.1 to 22.4.
Side by side
| Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Ring-2.6-1T | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 32.9 | 36.3 |
| Released | 2024-09-18 | 2026-05-14 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 33K | — |
| Max output | 29K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.66 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1 | — |
| Results tracked | 31 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Ring-2.6-1T leads
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.4 (#328), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.1
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 9% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 16.4% | — |
| SciCode | — | 42.4% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 49% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 56.9% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1276 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 58% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 432.57 |
| HumanEval+ | 87.2% | — |
| MBPP+ | 77% | — |
Reasoning Ring-2.6-1T leads
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 20.4 (#220), Ring-2.6-1T: 25.3
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 3.7% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 42.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1251 | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 49.9% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.41 | — |
| HellaSwag | 83% | — |
| LiveBench | 46.2% | — |
| WinoGrande | 80.8% | — |
Math Not comparable
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 30.8 (#203), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 46.6% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1251 | — |
| GSM8K | 93% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 32.9 (#200), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1221 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 70.5% | — |
| MMLU | 79.1% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#230), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1205 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1222 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1228 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.6 (#240), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.7% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1223 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.9 (#204), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1251 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.8 (#235), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1230 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1174 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1222 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 23.3% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better than Ring-2.6-1T?
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has enough public results to be ranked (#239); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is Qwen2.5-Coder-32B or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?
Ring-2.6-1T scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.1 versus 22.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5-Coder-32B and Ring-2.6-1T share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.