Model comparison
Qwen3.7 Max vs Ring-2.6-1T
Qwen3.7 Max has enough public results to be ranked (#42); 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. Qwen3.7 Max scores higher in 2 categories and Ring-2.6-1T in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 49.2 to 26.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is CritPt: 13.4% for Qwen3.7 Max and 3.7% for Ring-2.6-1T.
- Ring-2.6-1T has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Qwen3.7 Max | Ring-2.6-1T | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 51.5 | 36.9 |
| Released | 2026-05-19 | 2026-05-14 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2.50 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $7.50 | — |
| Results tracked | 33 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.7 Max leads
Qwen3.7 Max: 50.4 (#45), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.7
| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Max | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 48.8% | 42.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,189 | 432.57 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 77.3% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1515 | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1498 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Qwen3.7 Max: 22.1 (#135), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Max | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| GBAEval | 0.4% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.7 Max leads
Qwen3.7 Max: 49.2 (#38), Ring-2.6-1T: 26.1
| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Max | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 13.4% | 3.7% |
| SimpleBench | 70.4% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 85.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 19% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 9.5% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1483 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 32% | — |
| DTBench | 92.3% | — |
| LMCA | 44% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 153.68 | — |
Math Not comparable
Qwen3.7 Max: 62.4 (#32), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Max | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 64.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 34.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 95.6% | — |
| ProofBench | 26% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1490 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Qwen3.7 Max: 61.6 (#28), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Max | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.9% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 55.8% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1488 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen3.7 Max: 56.9 (#15), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Max | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1474 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1530 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1484 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen3.7 Max: 76.7 (#38), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Max | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1460 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#40), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Max | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1482 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Qwen3.7 Max: 65.0 (#54), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Max | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1476 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1449 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1110 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1481 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen3.7 Max better than Ring-2.6-1T?
Qwen3.7 Max has enough public results to be ranked (#42); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is Qwen3.7 Max or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?
Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.4 versus 40.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen3.7 Max and Ring-2.6-1T share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.7 Max has 33 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.