# Grok 4.7 vs Ring-2.6-1T

> Grok 4.7 has enough public results to be ranked (#56); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

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

## Summary

- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Grok 4.7 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 coding, where Grok 4.7 leads 55.0 to 40.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 57.4% for Grok 4.7 and 42.4% for Ring-2.6-1T.
- Ring-2.6-1T has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Grok 4.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | xAI | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 46.6 | 36.3 |
| Rank | 56 | — |
| Context | 500K | — |
| Input $/M | $2 | — |
| Output $/M | $6 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Grok 4.7: 55.0 (#23)
- Ring-2.6-1T: 40.1

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 57.4% | 42.4% |
| CursorBench | 46.3% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1636 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 29.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1423 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 432.57 |

## Reasoning

- Grok 4.7: 40.1 (#49)
- Ring-2.6-1T: 25.3

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 17.7% | 3.7% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 76.8% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1409 | — |

## Math

- Grok 4.7: 41.1 (#73)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| ProofBench | 34% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1393 | — |

## Knowledge

- Grok 4.7: 38.7 (#130)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1413 | — |

## Multimodal

- Grok 4.7: 28.8 (#107)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Furniture Assembly | 20.8% | — |

## Multilingual

- Grok 4.7: 51.2 (#108)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1392 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1476 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1396 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Grok 4.7: 74.3 (#98)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1406 | — |

## Long Context

- Grok 4.7: 43.2 (#97)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1416 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Grok 4.7: 70.1 (#23)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | Grok 4.7 | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1397 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1391 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2007 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1389 | — |

## FAQ

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

Grok 4.7 has enough public results to be ranked (#56); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

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

Grok 4.7 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.0 versus 40.1 in the Noometry coding category.

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

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Grok 4.7 has 21 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.