Model comparison
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B vs Ring-2.6-1T
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B has enough public results to be ranked (#119); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)
Ant Group (inclusionAI)Summary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3.5 122B-A10B scores higher in 1 category and Ring-2.6-1T in 1 category; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 35.6% for Qwen3.5 122B-A10B and 42.4% for Ring-2.6-1T.
Side by side
| Qwen3.5 122B-A10B | Ring-2.6-1T | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 42.1 | 36.9 |
| Released | 2026-02-23 | 2026-05-14 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 262K | — |
| Max output | 66K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.40 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $3.20 | — |
| Results tracked | 27 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Ring-2.6-1T leads
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 39.1 (#162), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.7
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 35.6% | 42.4% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1360 | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1436 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 432.57 |
Reasoning Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 27.2 (#123), Ring-2.6-1T: 26.1
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0.9% | 3.7% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 51.7% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 51.2% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1421 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 17% | — |
| DTBench | 84.3% | — |
| LMCA | 32.2% | — |
Math Not comparable
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 39.1 (#112), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1432 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 38.8 (#142), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.2% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1432 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 39.6 (#57), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1245 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 51.6 (#107), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1400 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1462 | — |
| LMArena French | 1442 | — |
| LMArena German | 1426 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1367 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1352 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1400 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1424 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 73.8 (#115), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1399 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 43.0 (#109), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1410 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 60.0 (#105), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1417 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1368 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1416 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen3.5 122B-A10B better than Ring-2.6-1T?
Qwen3.5 122B-A10B has enough public results to be ranked (#119); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is Qwen3.5 122B-A10B or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?
Ring-2.6-1T scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.7 versus 39.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen3.5 122B-A10B and Ring-2.6-1T share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.5 122B-A10B has 27 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.