Model comparison
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview vs Ring-2.6-1T
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview has enough public results to be ranked (#20); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
Google
Ant Group (inclusionAI)Summary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview 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 Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads 71.7 to 25.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 58.9% for Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview and 42.4% for Ring-2.6-1T.
- Ring-2.6-1T has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Ring-2.6-1T | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Ant Group (inclusionAI) | |
| Noometry Index | 56.7 | 36.3 |
| Released | 2026-02-19 | 2026-05-14 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | — |
| Max output | 66K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $12 | — |
| Results tracked | 71 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 42.7 (#88), Ring-2.6-1T: 40.1
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 58.9% | 42.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,161 | 432.57 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 75.6% | — |
| DeepSWE | 11.7% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1446 | — |
| GSO | 22.6% | — |
| WeirdML | 72.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1483 | — |
| MirrorCode | 8.9% | — |
| AlgoTune | 2.02 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 37.7 (#33), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 80.2% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 35.3% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 26% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 47.8% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 22% | — |
| BALROG | 57% | — |
| ExploitBench | 26.1% | — |
| GBAEval | 0.8% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 17% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1211 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 77% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 3,774 | — |
Reasoning Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview leads
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 71.7 (#9), Ring-2.6-1T: 25.3
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 17.7% | 3.7% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 77.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 79.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 97.4% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 98% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 55% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 36.8% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 79.4% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 14.3% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1484 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 34% | — |
| DTBench | 97.1% | — |
| LMCA | 53.8% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 154.92 | — |
| ForecastBench | 59 | — |
Math Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 61.8 (#28), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 59.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 26.8% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 86.5% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 95.6% | — |
| ProofBench | 26% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1485 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 36.9% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 16.7% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 71.8 (#3), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 94.4% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 46.4% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 73.5% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.4% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1484 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 38.1 (#60), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1296 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 26.5% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 26.7% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1444 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 57.1 (#11), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1475 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1528 | — |
| LMArena French | 1488 | — |
| LMArena German | 1491 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1494 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1458 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1496 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1480 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 77.1 (#31), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1465 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 47.3 (#17), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| CL-bench | 20.8% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 16.9% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1482 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview: 66.3 (#36), Ring-2.6-1T: —
| Benchmark | Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview | Ring-2.6-1T |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1480 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1482 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1491 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1142 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1486 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview better than Ring-2.6-1T?
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview has enough public results to be ranked (#20); Ring-2.6-1T does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview or Ring-2.6-1T better for coding?
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.7 versus 40.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview and Ring-2.6-1T share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview has 71 scored results on Noometry and Ring-2.6-1T has 3.