Model comparison
Qwen3-4B vs Ring-2.6-1T
Qwen3-4B has enough public results to be ranked (#264); 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 reasoning, where Ring-2.6-1T leads 26.1 to 19.2.
Side by side
| Qwen3-4B | Ring-2.6-1T | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 31.9 | 36.9 |
| Released | 2025-04-29 | 2026-05-14 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 6 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Qwen3-4B: —, Ring-2.6-1T: 40.7
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Qwen3-4B: 27.6 (#100), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3-4B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 35.7% | — |
Reasoning Ring-2.6-1T leads
Qwen3-4B: 19.2 (#268), Ring-2.6-1T: 26.1
| Benchmark | Qwen3-4B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 3.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | 4% | — |
Math Not comparable
Qwen3-4B: 29.7 (#240), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3-4B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 38.5% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 52.2% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Qwen3-4B: 33.0 (#208), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3-4B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 52.3% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 5.7% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen3-4B better than Ring-2.6-1T?
Qwen3-4B has enough public results to be ranked (#264); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
How many benchmarks do Qwen3-4B and Ring-2.6-1T share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3-4B has 6 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.