# Qwen3.7 Max vs Ring-2.6-1T

> Qwen3.7 Max has enough public results to be ranked (#35); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/qwen3-7-max-vs-ring-2-6-1t
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 3

## Summary

- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3.7 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 Qwen3.7 Max leads 48.4 to 25.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is CritPt: 13.4% for Qwen3.7 Max and 3.7% for Ring-2.6-1T.
- Ring-2.6-1T has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Qwen3.7 Max | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Ant Group (inclusionAI) |
| Noometry Index | 51.4 | 36.3 |
| Rank | 35 | — |
| Context | 1M | — |
| Input $/M | $2.50 | — |
| Output $/M | $7.50 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Qwen3.7 Max: 50.2 (#43)
- Ring-2.6-1T: 40.1

| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Max | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 48.8% | 42.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,189 | 432.57 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 77.3% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1515 | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1498 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Qwen3.7 Max: 21.8 (#129)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Max | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| GBAEval | 0.4% | — |

## Reasoning

- Qwen3.7 Max: 48.4 (#36)
- Ring-2.6-1T: 25.3

| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Max | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 13.4% | 3.7% |
| SimpleBench | 70.4% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 85.1% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 19% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 9.5% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1483 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 32% | — |
| DTBench | 92.3% | — |
| LMCA | 44% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 153.74 | — |

## Math

- Qwen3.7 Max: 62.3 (#26)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Max | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 64.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 34.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 95.6% | — |
| ProofBench | 26% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1488 | — |

## Knowledge

- Qwen3.7 Max: 61.7 (#24)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Max | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.9% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 55.8% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1488 | — |

## Multilingual

- Qwen3.7 Max: 57.1 (#13)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Max | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1475 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1533 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1482 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Qwen3.7 Max: 76.9 (#34)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Max | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1460 | — |

## Long Context

- Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#34)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Max | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1484 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Qwen3.7 Max: 65.2 (#52)
- Ring-2.6-1T: —

| Benchmark | Qwen3.7 Max | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1476 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1450 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1110 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1482 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Qwen3.7 Max better than Ring-2.6-1T?

Qwen3.7 Max has enough public results to be ranked (#35); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

### Is Qwen3.7 Max or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?

Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.2 versus 40.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Qwen3.7 Max and Ring-2.6-1T share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.7 Max has 33 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.