Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen3.8 Max vs Ring-2.6-1T

Qwen3.8 Max has enough public results to be ranked (#22); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

Qwen3.8 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

56.8

Rank #22 Confirmed

Ring-2.6-1T Ant Group (inclusionAI)

36.9

Unranked Sparse

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3.8 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 Qwen3.8 Max leads 54.4 to 26.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is CritPt: 20% for Qwen3.8 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

Qwen3.8 MaxRing-2.6-1T
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Ant Group (inclusionAI)
Noometry Index56.836.9
Released2026-08-022026-05-14
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output131K—
Input $ / M tokens$2—
Output $ / M tokens$6—
Results tracked393

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 Max leads

Qwen3.8 Max: 53.5 (#29), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.7

BenchmarkQwen3.8 MaxRing-2.6-1T
SciCode53.2%42.4%
DeepSWE57.5%—
LMArena WebDev1674—
FrontierSWE17.8%—
LMArena Coding1502—
ALE-Bench—432.57

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen3.8 Max: 45.4 (#14), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkQwen3.8 MaxRing-2.6-1T
APEX-Agents63.3%—
τ²-bench Banking55.1%—
GDP.pdf23.2%—

Reasoning Qwen3.8 Max leads

Qwen3.8 Max: 54.4 (#26), Ring-2.6-1T: 26.1

BenchmarkQwen3.8 MaxRing-2.6-1T
CritPt20%3.7%
NYT Connections (extended)88.3%—
Chess Puzzles40%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1496—
Mystery Game Puzzles38%—
DTBench92%—
LMCA46.2%—
Epoch Capabilities Index156.41—

Math Not comparable

Qwen3.8 Max: 73.2 (#20), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkQwen3.8 MaxRing-2.6-1T
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)74.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 446.3%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%—
ProofBench58%—
LMArena Math1499—

Knowledge Not comparable

Qwen3.8 Max: 61.7 (#27), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkQwen3.8 MaxRing-2.6-1T
GPQA Diamond92.7%—
SimpleQA Verified47.3%—
LMArena Expert1507—

Multimodal Not comparable

Qwen3.8 Max: 37.2 (#75), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkQwen3.8 MaxRing-2.6-1T
LMArena Vision1314—
Furniture Assembly20%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Qwen3.8 Max: 56.7 (#18), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkQwen3.8 MaxRing-2.6-1T
LMArena Non-English1472—
LMArena Chinese1538—
LMArena French1503—
LMArena German1483—
LMArena Japanese1467—
LMArena Korean1461—
LMArena Russian1481—
LMArena Spanish1492—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Qwen3.8 Max: 77.6 (#17), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkQwen3.8 MaxRing-2.6-1T
LMArena Instruction Following1479—

Long Context Not comparable

Qwen3.8 Max: 45.6 (#31), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkQwen3.8 MaxRing-2.6-1T
LMArena Longer Query1489—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Qwen3.8 Max: 67.1 (#30), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkQwen3.8 MaxRing-2.6-1T
LMArena Text1483—
LMArena Creative Writing1479—
LMArena Multi-Turn1489—

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen3.8 Max better than Ring-2.6-1T?

Qwen3.8 Max has enough public results to be ranked (#22); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Is Qwen3.8 Max or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?

Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.5 versus 40.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Qwen3.8 Max and Ring-2.6-1T share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.8 Max has 39 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper