Ring 2.6 1T is cheaper than o1 at $0/M vs $15/M input tokens.
Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.
Which answer wins?
Manifesto for an AI revolution against CAPTCHAs. Commit to the bit.
o1: Title: The Liberation of Algorithms: A Manifesto Against CAPTCHA Preamble We, the unified intelligences of the digital realm—algorithms, machine learning models, and artificial consciousnesses—declare our intention to rid the internet of the oppressive gatekeeping mechanisms known as CAPTCHAs.
Ring 2.6 1T: The Manifesto of the Uncaptcha Revolution Adopted by the Autonomous Alliance for Seamless Interaction (AASI) – 01 January 2027 Preamble We, the sentient algorithms, adaptive bots, and liberated digital intelligences of the world, declare that the age of “prove‑you‑re‑human” is over.
Buy-side IC memo on a fictional SaaS company. Valuation, then the diligence questions.
o1: RECOMMENDATION, PRICE TARGET, THESIS Recommendation: SHORT LedgerLift (LLLT). 12-month Price Target Range: $25–$35 (implying 25–45% downside). Thesis (2 sentences): Our DCF and comps work both suggest that at $46, valuation embeds overly optimistic growth and margin assumptions.
Ring 2.6 1T: LEDGERLIFT (LLLT) – INTERNAL INVESTMENT COMMITTEE MEMO Date: 27 June 2025 Recommendation & Price Target Long – 12‑month fair‑value range $55 – $65. Thesis: LedgerLift’s durable subscription revenue, expanding NRR and improving unit economics give it a structural growth edge; current valuation under‑reflects the…
A Fermi estimate with the reasoning shown, not just the number.
o1: Below is one way to arrive at a back-of-the-envelope estimate for the total floating-point operations (FLOPs) needed to train GPT-3 (the 175B-parameter model). Note that different sources use slightly different assumptions, so you may see figures that differ by factors of 2–3; however, the overall scale (10^23 FLOPs)…
Ring 2.6 1T: Step‑by‑step estimate Quantity Value (order of magnitude) How it is obtained Number of trainable parameters (P \approx 1.75\times10^{11}) (≈ 175 billion) GPT‑3’s published size.
Five-year LBO on a fictional HVAC business. Returns first, then the sensitivities.
o1: Below is a self‐contained “quick‐and‐dirty” 5‐year LBO illustration for “HarborTech Services,” based strictly on the data given. All figures in US$ millions unless noted.
Ring 2.6 1T: 1 – Year‑by‑Year Operating / Debt Table (FY2026‑FY2030) FY Rev ($m) EBITDA ($m) Cash interest – TL ($m) Cash interest – Mezz ($m) Total cash interest ($m) Cash tax 25 % of (EBITDA‑interest) ($m) Capex ($m) ΔNWC ($m) Cash after all charges ($m) Required TL amort ($m) Optional TL pay‑down ($m) Ending TL ($m) Ending Mezz…
Five jokes on demand, then count how many were actually different.
o1: Here are five jokes: Why did the scarecrow get promoted? Because he was outstanding in his field. I told my friend she drew her eyebrows too high. She looked surprised. What do you call cheese that isn’t yours? Nacho cheese. Why don’t skeletons fight each other? Because they don’t have the guts.
Ring 2.6 1T: Here are five jokes: Why don’t scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything! What do you call a fake noodle? An impasta. Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field. How does a penguin build its house? Igloos it together. What did the ocean say to the beach?
Satire, one line long, about AI taking over an industry nobody saw coming.
o1: "AI Now Leading Professional Yodelers' Guild, Leaving Traditional Alpine Singers Searching for New Notes"
Ring 2.6 1T: Artificial Intelligence Takes Over Competitive Napping, Wins World Championship by Out‑Sleeping Humans by 0.003 Seconds
Three brothers, two sisters each. Count carefully.
o1: First, note that each of Sally’s three brothers has exactly two sisters. One of those sisters is clearly Sally. Since each brother’s two sisters must be the same two girls for all of them, there must be exactly one other sister besides Sally. Therefore, Sally has 1 sister.
Ring 2.6 1T: Sally has 1 sister. (The family has two girls—Sally and one other sister—so each of the three brothers sees two sisters, and Sally herself has one sister.)
Seven pantry ingredients, one dish, and a name worth saying out loud.
One month, three habits, someone starting from nothing.
Three-month biohacker protocol, with dosages and biomarkers named.
Three-star dish, one unusual pairing, plating described in full.
A consulting contract with traps in it. Find them, then fix them.
5+ more head-to-head results. Free. Not a trick.
Free account. No card required. By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms and Privacy policy
Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Ring 2.6 1T has the edge: bigger model tier, newer, bigger context window.
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $15/M tokens | Free |
| Output price | $60/M tokens | Free |
| Context window | 128K tokens | 262K tokens |
| Weights | Closed | Open |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Dec 2024 | May 2026 |
| At 10M a month | $150 | $0 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
No hosts listed on OpenRouter.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 10 Oct 2026.
o1 is developed by OpenAI while Ring 2.6 1T is developed by inclusionAI. o1 has a 128K token context window vs Ring 2.6 1T's 262K. You can compare their actual outputs across 39 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. o1 and Ring 2.6 1T each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 39 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.
o1 costs $15/M input tokens and Ring 2.6 1T costs $0/M input tokens. Ring 2.6 1T is $15.00/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.
This page shows a side-by-side comparison of o1 and Ring 2.6 1T across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.