Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Kimi K2.6
Head-to-head evidence from 27 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.6 #14; Kimi K2.6 #13
Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Kimi K2.6 share 27 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 7 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.6; 33 to Kimi K2.6.
Updated July 13, 2026- Shared results
- 27
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
- 7
- Kimi K2.6 only
- 33
- Comparable categories
- 5 / 8
Pick Claude Sonnet 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Kimi K2.6 only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 27 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 5 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the cleaner provisional overall profile here, landing at 77 versus 74. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Claude Sonnet 4.6's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 66.2 against 42.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 49% to 34.7%. Kimi K2.6 does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.95 input / $4.00 output per 1M tokens for Kimi K2.6. That is roughly 3.8x on output cost alone. Kimi K2.6 is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Sonnet 4.6 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Kimi K2.6 gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for Claude Sonnet 4.6.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Δ | Kimi K2.6 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Sonnet 4.626.4 | Margin→ 40.7 | Kimi K2.667.1 |
| Knowledge | Claude Sonnet 4.666.2 | Margin← 24.0 | Kimi K2.642.2 |
| Agentic | Claude Sonnet 4.665.2 | Margin→ 8.3 | Kimi K2.673.5 |
| Coding | Claude Sonnet 4.669.1 | Margin→ 3.5 | Kimi K2.672.6 |
| Multimodal | Claude Sonnet 4.677.4 | Margin→ 2.4 | Kimi K2.679.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 49%B 34.7%Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 14.3HLE: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 49%; Kimi K2.6 scored 34.7%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 59.1%B 66.7%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 7.6Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 59.1%; Kimi K2.6 scored 66.7%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 32.400%B 38.966%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 6.6FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 32.400%; Kimi K2.6 scored 38.966%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 8.300%B 14.580%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 6.3FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 8.300%; Kimi K2.6 scored 14.580%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
CharXiv
MultimodalA 77.4%B 80.4%Winner: Kimi K2.6Δ 3CharXiv: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 77.4%; Kimi K2.6 scored 80.4%. Kimi K2.6 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Kimi K2.6 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.6$3 input / $15 output | Kimi K2.6$0.95 input / $4 output | Kimi K2.6 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Sonnet 4.644 tok/s | Kimi K2.6Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Sonnet 4.61.48 s | Kimi K2.6Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.6200K | Kimi K2.6256K | Kimi K2.6 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticKimi K2.6 wins24 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 59.1% | 66.7% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 72.1% | 73.1% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | 67.8% | 62.3% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| CyberGymSource | 65.2% | — | Not comparable |
| Tau2-TelecomSource | 79.5% | 95.9% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 62.92% | 56.82% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 8.3% | 4.6% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| JobBenchSource | 36.9% | — | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 83.2% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 50% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 55.9% | Not comparable |
| DeepSearchQASource | — | 92.5% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 30.3% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 34.5% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1190 | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 28.5% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 18.0% | Not comparable |
| AA BriefcaseSource | — | 809 | Not comparable |
| AA AutomationBenchSource | — | 19.6% | Not comparable |
| AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource | — | 38.5% | Not comparable |
| AA Harvey LABSource | — | 0.0% | Not comparable |
| AA ITBenchSource | — | 31.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Tau3 BankingSource | — | 20.6% | Not comparable |
CodingKimi K2.6 wins16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 79.6% | 80.2% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 60.7% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 80.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 51.48% | 37.89% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| cursorBench31Source | 48.8% | 47.6% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 46.2% | 43.9% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 46.9% | 53.5% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| FrontierCodeSource | 24.3% | — | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 89.6% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 89.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 58.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 76.7% | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 52.2% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 66.7% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 61.8% | Not comparable |
| AA Terminal-Bench 2.1Source | — | 65.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 89.9% | 90.5% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| SuperGPQASource | 95% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 79.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 49% | 34.7% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 35.9% | 44.2% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 79.9% | 91.1% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 13.2% | 35.9% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -2.9% | 6.4% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 38.0% | 32.8% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 65.9% | 39.3% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | — | 90.5% | Not comparable |
| AA Openness IndexSource | — | 33.3% | Not comparable |
MathKimi K2.6 wins5 benchmarks
MultimodalKimi K2.6 wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| CharXivSource | 77.4% | 80.4% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 70.6% | 79.4% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1328 | 1318 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 79.4% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource | — | 80.1% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 87.4% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 96.9% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Kimi K2.6 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 41.2% | 76.0% | Kimi K2.6 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (6)
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Kimi K2.6?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 77 to 74. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 49% and 34.7%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Kimi K2.6?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 66.2 versus 42.2. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.6 versus 69.1. Inside this category, Vibe Code Bench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 67.1 versus 26.4. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.5 versus 65.2. Inside this category, Tau2-Telecom is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Kimi K2.6?
Kimi K2.6 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79.8 versus 77.4. Inside this category, Design Arena Website is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Related Comparisons
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.