Model comparison
Qwen3.5 27B vs Ring-2.6-1T
Qwen3.5 27B has enough public results to be ranked (#127); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)
Ant Group (inclusionAI)Summary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Qwen3.5 27B scores higher in 1 category and Ring-2.6-1T in 1 category; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
Side by side
| Qwen3.5 27B | Ring-2.6-1T | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 41.4 | 36.3 |
| Released | 2026-02-23 | 2026-05-14 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 262K | — |
| Max output | 66K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.40 | — |
| Results tracked | 28 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Ring-2.6-1T leads
Qwen3.5 27B: 38.6 (#159), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.1
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| ALE-Bench | 349.45 | 432.57 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1357 | — |
| SciCode | — | 42.4% |
| WeirdML | 39.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1427 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Qwen3.5 27B: —, Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 201.98 | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.5 27B leads
Qwen3.5 27B: 26.6 (#116), Ring-2.6-1T: 25.3
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 47.9% | — |
| CritPt | — | 3.7% |
| Thematic Generalization | 45.5% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1414 | — |
| DTBench | 82.4% | — |
| LMCA | 34% | — |
Math Not comparable
Qwen3.5 27B: 36.8 (#103), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 56.7% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1428 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Qwen3.5 27B: 37.4 (#149), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.1% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1428 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Qwen3.5 27B: 38.7 (#56), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1240 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen3.5 27B: 51.0 (#112), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1390 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1478 | — |
| LMArena French | 1409 | — |
| LMArena German | 1393 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1345 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1359 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1389 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1408 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen3.5 27B: 73.7 (#114), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1393 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#103), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1413 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Qwen3.5 27B: 59.5 (#106), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1409 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1362 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1410 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen3.5 27B better than Ring-2.6-1T?
Qwen3.5 27B has enough public results to be ranked (#127); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is Qwen3.5 27B or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?
Ring-2.6-1T scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.1 versus 38.6 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen3.5 27B and Ring-2.6-1T share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Qwen3.5 27B has 28 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.