# GLM-4.7 vs Ring-2.6-1T

> GLM-4.7 has enough public results to be ranked (#124); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/glm-4-7-vs-ring-2-6-1t
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 3

## Summary

- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. GLM-4.7 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 coding, where GLM-4.7 leads 44.0 to 40.7.

## Snapshot

| | GLM-4.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai (Zhipu) | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 42.0 | 36.9 |
| Rank | 124 | — |
| Context | 205K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.60 | — |
| Output $/M | $2.20 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- GLM-4.7: 44.0 (#79)
- Ring-2.6-1T: 40.7

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 45.1% | 42.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 399.48 | 432.57 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1435 | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1454 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GLM-4.7: 26.5 (#103)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 33.4% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 2,377 | — |

## Reasoning

- GLM-4.7: 24.3 (#164)
- Ring-2.6-1T: 26.1

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 1.7% | 3.7% |
| SimpleBench | 47.7% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 6% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1443 | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.51 | — |

## Math

- GLM-4.7: 38.6 (#135)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 83.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 6% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1423 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 2.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 0% | — |

## Knowledge

- GLM-4.7: 47.0 (#80)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 83.3% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 32.2% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 11.7% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1424 | — |

## Multilingual

- GLM-4.7: 52.8 (#79)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1417 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1495 | — |
| LMArena French | 1432 | — |
| LMArena German | 1424 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1439 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1399 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1423 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1434 | — |

## Instruction Following

- GLM-4.7: 74.4 (#95)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1411 | — |

## Long Context

- GLM-4.7: 42.8 (#116)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| CL-bench | 15.9% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 10.9% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1432 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- GLM-4.7: 60.9 (#93)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | GLM-4.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1435 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1401 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1413 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1446 | — |

## FAQ

### Is GLM-4.7 better than Ring-2.6-1T?

GLM-4.7 has enough public results to be ranked (#124); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

### Is GLM-4.7 or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?

GLM-4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 44.0 versus 40.7 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do GLM-4.7 and Ring-2.6-1T share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. GLM-4.7 has 36 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.