Model comparison
Qwen3.6 Plus vs Ring-2.6-1T
Qwen3.6 Plus has enough public results to be ranked (#62); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)
Ant Group (inclusionAI)Summary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3.6 Plus scores higher in 2 categories and Ring-2.6-1T in 0 categories; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.6 Plus leads 29.3 to 26.1.
- Ring-2.6-1T has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Qwen3.6 Plus | Ring-2.6-1T | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 47.5 | 36.9 |
| Released | 2026-03-31 | 2026-05-14 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 66K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.50 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $3 | — |
| Results tracked | 37 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.8 (#130), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.7
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 Plus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 40.7% | 42.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 670.15 | 432.57 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 57.9% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1461 | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1467 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Qwen3.6 Plus: —, Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 Plus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 5,115 | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Qwen3.6 Plus: 29.3 (#93), Ring-2.6-1T: 26.1
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 Plus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 2.9% | 3.7% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 60.3% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 17% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 59.5% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1449 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 12% | — |
| DTBench | 81.9% | — |
| LMCA | 33.1% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 147.65 | — |
Math Not comparable
Qwen3.6 Plus: 51.8 (#54), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 Plus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 38.2% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.3% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1450 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 26.2% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 8.3% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#45), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 Plus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 88.4% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 44.1% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1454 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.3 (#70), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 Plus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1424 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1477 | — |
| LMArena French | 1455 | — |
| LMArena German | 1452 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1389 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1379 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1434 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1432 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.0 (#74), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 Plus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1425 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.2 (#49), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 Plus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| CL-bench | 20.3% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1439 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.2 (#82), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 Plus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1437 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1404 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1438 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen3.6 Plus better than Ring-2.6-1T?
Qwen3.6 Plus has enough public results to be ranked (#62); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is Qwen3.6 Plus or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (40.8 vs 40.7); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Qwen3.6 Plus and Ring-2.6-1T share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.6 Plus has 37 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.