Celeris-1 vs Ring-2.6-1T
Which is better for the money: Celeris-1 by Celeris or Ring-2.6-1T by InclusionAI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-24.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Ring-2.6-1T scores 10.3 points higher (16.6 vs 6.3) but costs 9.6× as much to run the benchmark ($576 vs $60.0; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Ring-2.6-1T when you need intelligence above 6.3, and Celeris-1 when 6.3 is enough.
| Metric | Celeris-1 | Ring-2.6-1T | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 6.3 | 16.6 | +163.5% Ring-2.6-1T is 2.6× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $59.99 | $575.60 | +859.5% Ring-2.6-1T is 9.6× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 0.87s | 24.45s | +2710.3% Ring-2.6-1T is 2710.3% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.20 / $0.70 | $0.30 / $2.50 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text |
Ring-2.6-1T vs Celeris-1: 163.5% more intelligence, 859.5% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 2710.3% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Celeris-1 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Haiku 5.5 (Medium) scores 34.50 for $56.4.
- Ring-2.6-1T is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (High) scores 50.20 for $521.
Celeris-1Ring-2.6-1TToday's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/celeris-1/ring-2-6-1t · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/celeris-1/ring-2-6-1t?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill