Model comparison
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B vs Ring-2.6-1T
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B has enough public results to be ranked (#67); 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 Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads 34.5 to 26.1.
Side by side
| Qwen3.5 397B-A17B | Ring-2.6-1T | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 46.0 | 36.9 |
| Released | 2026-02-01 | 2026-05-14 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 262K | — |
| Max output | 66K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.60 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $3.60 | — |
| Results tracked | 36 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 42.0 (#114), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.7
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1400 | — |
| SciCode | — | 42.4% |
| LMArena Coding | 1465 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 432.57 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 33.3 (#53), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 24.9% | — |
| τ²-bench Airline | 81.5% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 9.8% | — |
| τ²-bench Retail | 84.4% | — |
| τ²-bench Telecom | 97.8% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 34.5 (#70), Ring-2.6-1T: 26.1
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 73.7% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 58.9% | — |
| CritPt | — | 3.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | 13% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 65.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1448 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 18% | — |
| DTBench | 87.5% | — |
| LMCA | 37.9% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 146.65 | — |
Math Not comparable
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 46.1 (#73), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 31.2% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 88.9% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1454 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 53.3 (#58), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 86.4% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1462 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 40.7 (#44), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 53.7 (#59), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1430 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1500 | — |
| LMArena French | 1461 | — |
| LMArena German | 1447 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1426 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1384 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1429 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1441 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 75.0 (#77), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1424 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 44.1 (#74), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1442 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 62.3 (#79), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1438 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1401 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1478 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1446 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen3.5 397B-A17B better than Ring-2.6-1T?
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B has enough public results to be ranked (#67); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is Qwen3.5 397B-A17B or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.0 versus 40.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen3.5 397B-A17B and Ring-2.6-1T share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.5 397B-A17B has 36 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.