Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Fable 5.1 vs Ring-2.6-1T

Claude Fable 5.1 has enough public results to be ranked (#2); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

Claude Fable 5.1 Anthropic

69.0

Rank #2 Confirmed

Ring-2.6-1T Ant Group (inclusionAI)

36.9

Unranked Sparse

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Fable 5.1 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 Claude Fable 5.1 leads 76.7 to 26.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is CritPt: 31.1% for Claude Fable 5.1 and 3.7% for Ring-2.6-1T.
  • Ring-2.6-1T has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Fable 5.1Ring-2.6-1T
ProviderAnthropicAnt Group (inclusionAI)
Noometry Index69.036.9
Released2026-09-012026-05-14
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$10—
Output $ / M tokens$50—
Results tracked523

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 74.7 (#1), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.7

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Ring-2.6-1T
SciCode63.1%42.4%
ALE-Bench2,143432.57
FrontierCode50.9%—
CursorBench51.8%—
LMArena WebDev1744—
FrontierSWE56.3%—
GSO88.2%—
WeirdML92.9%—
LMArena Coding1528—
MirrorCode73.3%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 50.7 (#5), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Ring-2.6-1T
APEX-Agents68.6%—
Remote Labor Index17.9%—
GDP.pdf29.6%—
Vending-Bench 25,422—

Reasoning Claude Fable 5.1 leads

Claude Fable 5.1: 76.7 (#7), Ring-2.6-1T: 26.1

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Ring-2.6-1T
CritPt31.1%3.7%
ARC-AGI-290%—
NYT Connections (extended)90%—
ARC-AGI-197.5%—
Chess Puzzles47%—
EBR-Bench57.1%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1526—
Mystery Game Puzzles58%—
DTBench97.6%—
LMCA65.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index164.7—

Math Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 89.6 (#4), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Ring-2.6-1T
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)90.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 487.8%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%—
ProofBench100%—
LMArena Math1525—
FrontierMath Erdős0%—

Knowledge Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 69.6 (#6), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Ring-2.6-1T
Humanity's Last Exam46.5%—
SimpleQA Verified70.8%—
LMArena Expert1535—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 53.9 (#4), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Ring-2.6-1T
LMArena Vision1318—
Blueprint-Bench 241.9%—
Furniture Assembly70%—
LMArena Document1513—

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 59.1 (#3), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Ring-2.6-1T
LMArena Non-English1507—
LMArena Chinese1586—
LMArena French1525—
LMArena German1500—
LMArena Japanese1543—
LMArena Korean1534—
LMArena Russian1521—
LMArena Spanish1516—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#6), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Ring-2.6-1T
LMArena Instruction Following1517—

Long Context Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 46.7 (#20), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Ring-2.6-1T
LMArena Longer Query1522—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Claude Fable 5.1: 79.2 (#2), Ring-2.6-1T: —

BenchmarkClaude Fable 5.1Ring-2.6-1T
LMArena Text1510—
LMArena Creative Writing1507—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2162—
LMArena Multi-Turn1492—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Fable 5.1 better than Ring-2.6-1T?

Claude Fable 5.1 has enough public results to be ranked (#2); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Is Claude Fable 5.1 or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?

Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 74.7 versus 40.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Claude Fable 5.1 and Ring-2.6-1T share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Fable 5.1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper