Model comparison
Qwen3.8 27B vs Ring-2.6-1T
Qwen3.8 27B has enough public results to be ranked (#68); 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. Qwen3.8 27B 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 Qwen3.8 27B leads 41.0 to 26.1.
Side by side
| Qwen3.8 27B | Ring-2.6-1T | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 46.0 | 36.9 |
| Released | 2026-08-14 | 2026-05-14 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 262K | — |
| Max output | 33K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.04 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.30 | — |
| Results tracked | 31 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads
Qwen3.8 27B: 50.5 (#44), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.7
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 46.6% | 42.4% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1593 | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1482 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 432.57 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 47.5% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads
Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54), Ring-2.6-1T: 26.1
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 5.4% | 3.7% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 42.4% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 54.5% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 87.5% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1460 | — |
| DTBench | 88% | — |
| LMCA | 41.4% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 45% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.38 | — |
Math Not comparable
Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 16% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1456 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1482 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1271 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1430 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1504 | — |
| LMArena French | 1465 | — |
| LMArena German | 1438 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1384 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1393 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1415 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1448 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1439 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1450 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1441 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1384 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1671 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1441 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen3.8 27B better than Ring-2.6-1T?
Qwen3.8 27B has enough public results to be ranked (#68); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is Qwen3.8 27B or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?
Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.5 versus 40.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen3.8 27B and Ring-2.6-1T share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.8 27B has 31 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.