# Qwen3.5 27B vs Ring-2.6-1T

> Qwen3.5 27B has enough public results to be ranked (#127); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/qwen3-5-27b-vs-ring-2-6-1t
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 1

## Summary

- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Qwen3.5 27B scores higher in 1 category and Ring-2.6-1T in 1 category; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.

## Snapshot

| | Qwen3.5 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 41.9 | 36.9 |
| Rank | 127 | — |
| Context | 262K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.30 | — |
| Output $/M | $2.40 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168)
- Ring-2.6-1T: 40.7

| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| ALE-Bench | 349.45 | 432.57 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1358 | — |
| SciCode | — | 42.4% |
| WeirdML | 39.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1427 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Qwen3.5 27B: —
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 201.98 | — |

## Reasoning

- Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117)
- Ring-2.6-1T: 26.1

| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 47.9% | — |
| CritPt | — | 3.7% |
| Thematic Generalization | 45.5% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1414 | — |
| DTBench | 82.4% | — |
| LMCA | 34% | — |

## Math

- Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 56.7% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1429 | — |

## Knowledge

- Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.1% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1428 | — |

## Multimodal

- Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1241 | — |

## Multilingual

- Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1390 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1478 | — |
| LMArena French | 1410 | — |
| LMArena German | 1393 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1345 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1358 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1390 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1407 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1393 | — |

## Long Context

- Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1413 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 27B | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1409 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1362 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1410 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Qwen3.5 27B better than Ring-2.6-1T?

Qwen3.5 27B has enough public results to be ranked (#127); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

### Is Qwen3.5 27B or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?

Ring-2.6-1T scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.7 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Qwen3.5 27B and Ring-2.6-1T share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Qwen3.5 27B has 28 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.