Model comparison
Qwen3.7 Plus vs Ring-2.6-1T
Qwen3.7 Plus has enough public results to be ranked (#72); 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. Qwen3.7 Plus scores higher in 1 category and Ring-2.6-1T in 1 category; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.7 Plus leads 39.3 to 26.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is CritPt: 9.1% for Qwen3.7 Plus 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 Plus | Ring-2.6-1T | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 45.3 | 36.9 |
| Released | 2026-06-02 | 2026-05-14 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | — |
| Max output | 131K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.40 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.60 | — |
| Results tracked | 32 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Ring-2.6-1T leads
Qwen3.7 Plus: 36.6 (#206), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.7
| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Plus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 45.5% | 42.4% |
| FrontierCode | 10.2% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1473 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 432.57 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Qwen3.7 Plus: 21.4 (#138), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Plus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| OSWorld 2.0 | 2.8% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Qwen3.7 Plus: 39.3 (#59), Ring-2.6-1T: 26.1
| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Plus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 9.1% | 3.7% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 74.8% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 24% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1460 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 17% | — |
| DTBench | 84% | — |
| LMCA | 37.6% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 147.37 | — |
Math Not comparable
Qwen3.7 Plus: 50.5 (#56), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Plus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 34.4% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 93.3% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1466 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.9 (#51), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Plus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 87.9% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1467 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Qwen3.7 Plus: 41.8 (#33), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Plus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1279 | — |
| LMArena Document | 1444 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.8 (#38), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Plus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1445 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1510 | — |
| LMArena French | 1473 | — |
| LMArena German | 1471 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1413 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1415 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1457 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1457 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen3.7 Plus: 75.8 (#52), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Plus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1440 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen3.7 Plus: 44.5 (#65), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Plus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1455 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Qwen3.7 Plus: 64.3 (#56), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Plus | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1455 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1439 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1460 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen3.7 Plus better than Ring-2.6-1T?
Qwen3.7 Plus has enough public results to be ranked (#72); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is Qwen3.7 Plus or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?
Ring-2.6-1T scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.7 versus 36.6 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen3.7 Plus and Ring-2.6-1T share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.7 Plus has 32 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.