Qwen3.8 27B (Non-reasoning) vs Ring-2.6-1T
Which is better for the money: Qwen3.8 27B (Non-reasoning) by Alibaba or Ring-2.6-1T by InclusionAI? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.8 27B (Non-reasoning) scores 3.6 points higher (20.2 vs 16.6) but costs 3.5× as much to run the benchmark ($2022 vs $576; flagship vs premium cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8 27B (Non-reasoning) when you need intelligence above 16.6, and Ring-2.6-1T when 16.6 is enough.
| Metric | Qwen3.8 27B (Non-reasoning) | Ring-2.6-1T | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 20.2 | 16.6 | −17.8% Ring-2.6-1T is 17.8% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $2,022.49 | $575.60 | −71.5% Ring-2.6-1T is 71.5% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 13.95s | 24.15s | +73.1% Ring-2.6-1T is 73.1% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.50 / $3.00 | $0.30 / $2.50 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image, Video | Text |
Ring-2.6-1T vs Qwen3.8 27B (Non-reasoning): 17.8% less intelligence, 71.5% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 73.1% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Qwen3.8 27B (Non-reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
- Ring-2.6-1T is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (High) scores 50.20 for $521.
Qwen3.8 27B (Non-reasoning)Ring-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/qwen3-8-27b-non-reasoning/ring-2-6-1t · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/qwen3-8-27b-non-reasoning/ring-2-6-1t?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill